Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 17-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1324 (2026)

Authorized claimants

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 455, §3 (NEW). PL 2019, c. 113, Pt. A, §1 (RP).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1984–2019 · leading case: State of Maine v. Christopher T. Knight, 2016 ME 123 (Me. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Maine v. Christopher T. Knight, 2016 ME 123 (Me. 2016). · cites it 7× “[¶10] Pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1324, a sentencing court is authorized to require an offender to pay restitution only to people or entities that have a statutorily defined connection to the case.”
State v. Hudson, 470 A.2d 786 (Me. 1984). · cites it 3× “The defendant’s principal contention is that the MSSPA is not an authorized claimant for restitution under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1324. We disagree. The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature.”
State of Maine v. Bruce Ouellette, 2019 ME 75 (Me. 2019). “Because the Town voluntarily declined restitution, the State sought restitution on behalf of Aroostook County pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1324(2) (2018). The court denied the State's request.”
State v. O'donnell, 495 A.2d 798 (Me. 1985). · cites it 2× “Any person, firm, organization, corporation or government entity which has provided recovery to the victim as a collateral source, but only to the extent that such recovery was actually made; and 4.”
State of Maine v. Wendy L. Gagne, 2019 ME 7 (Me. 2019). “[¶21] There is no reason to treat the dissolution of a corporate victim differently given the Legislature's pronouncement that the purposes of restitution include rehabilitating the offender and "reinforc[ing] the offender's sense of responsibility for the offense." 17-A M.R.S.…”
State of Maine v. Bruce Ouellette, 2019 ME 75 (Me. 2019). “Because the Town voluntarily declined restitution, the State sought restitution on behalf of Aroostook County pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1324(2) (2018). The court denied the State’s request.”
State of Maine v. Gagne (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “See also 17-A M.R.S. §1324(2)(restitution may be authorized for "[t]he county where the offense was prosecuted if the victim voluntarily refuses restitution.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1324(1) — 1 case
State v. Hudson, 470 A.2d 786 (Me. 1984). “The defendant’s principal contention is that the MSSPA is not an authorized claimant for restitution under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1324. We disagree. The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1324(2) — 4 cases
State of Maine v. Bruce Ouellette, 2019 ME 75 (Me. 2019). “Because the Town voluntarily declined restitution, the State sought restitution on behalf of Aroostook County pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1324(2) (2018). The court denied the State's request.”
State of Maine v. Wendy L. Gagne, 2019 ME 7 (Me. 2019). “[¶21] There is no reason to treat the dissolution of a corporate victim differently given the Legislature's pronouncement that the purposes of restitution include rehabilitating the offender and "reinforc[ing] the offender's sense of responsibility for the offense." 17-A M.R.S.…”
State of Maine v. Bruce Ouellette, 2019 ME 75 (Me. 2019). “Because the Town voluntarily declined restitution, the State sought restitution on behalf of Aroostook County pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1324(2) (2018). The court denied the State’s request.”
State of Maine v. Gagne (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “See also 17-A M.R.S. §1324(2)(restitution may be authorized for "[t]he county where the offense was prosecuted if the victim voluntarily refuses restitution.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1324(3) — 1 case
State of Maine v. Christopher T. Knight, 2016 ME 123 (Me. 2016). “[¶10] Pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1324, a sentencing court is authorized to require an offender to pay restitution only to people or entities that have a statutorily defined connection to the case.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.