Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 19
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 167-A (2026)

Loss of consortium

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1967, c. 13 (NEW). PL 1995, c. 694, §B1 (RP). PL 1995, c. 694, §E2 (AFF).
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 3 cases, 1984–1990 · leading case: McKellar v. Clark Equip. Co., 472 A.2d 411 (Me. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McKellar v. Clark Equip. Co., 472 A.2d 411 (Me. 1984). · cites it 4× “” 19 M.R.S.A. § 167-A (1981). Accordingly plaintiffs argue that their claim is based on a statutory cause of action, as distinguished from a common law action, and therefore is not barred by the immunity provision of the act.”
Phillips v. E. Maine Med. Ctr., 565 A.2d 306 (Me. 1989). · cites it 2× “Loss of Consortium At oral argument the Medical Center conceded that the two claims for loss of consortium under 19 M.R.S.A. § 167-A (loss of consortium) and 18-A M.”
Poirier v. United States, 745 F. Supp. 23 (D. Me. 1990). “See also 19 M.R.S.A. § 167-A (1967). Britton v. Dube, 147 A.”
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.