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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 280 (2026)

Effect of test results

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1967, c. 325, §2 (NEW). PL 1985, c. 652, §8 (RPR). PL 1995, c. 694, §B1 (RP). PL 1995, c. 694, §E2 (AFF).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1986–1992 · leading case: State v. Thompson, 503 A.2d 689 (Me. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Thompson, 503 A.2d 689 (Me. 1986). “19 M.R.S.A. § 280 (1981) (§ 10 of Uniform Act on Paternity) provides: If the court finds that the conclusions of all the experts, as disclosed by the evidence based upon the tests, are that the alleged father is not the father of the child, the question of paternity shall be…”
Denbow v. Harris, 583 A.2d 205 (Me. 1990). · cites it 2× “Harris contends on appeal that the blood test results were inadmissible because 19 M.R.S.A. § 280 requires that blood test results show the “probability of the alleged father’s paternity.”
Comm'r of the Dep't of Human Servs. v. Massey, 537 A.2d 1158 (Me. 1988). “Discussion The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the Superior Court committed reversible error in refusing to instruct the jury as to the presumption contained in 19 M.R.S.A. § 280 (Supp.1987), which mandates that if by all expert testimony it is established that the…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Vining, 617 A.2d 555 (Me. 1992). “…Following receipt of blood test results, the third party complaint was dismissed by the court in January 1989. See 19 M.R.S.A. § 280 (Supp.1991).”
Atkinson v. Hall, 556 A.2d 651 (Me. 1989). · cites it 2× “” 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 280, 280-A. Hall, on the other hand, sought an instruction under M.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Thibeault, 561 A.2d 486 (Me. 1989). “Because the Department did not send the blood samples to die laboratory defendant had agreed to for performance of the tests, the court ruled that the Department was not entitled to the presumption of paternity contained in 19 M.R.S.A. § 280(1)(D) (Supp.1988).”
Brougham v. Real, 582 A.2d 970 (Me. 1990). “See 19 M.R.S.A. § 280(1)(D) (Supp.1989). Real failed to appear at a scheduled jury trial, and the court defaulted him and conducted a nonjury trial in his absence.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Jackson, 568 A.2d 519 (Me. 1990). “15% probability of paternity, thus creating a presumption of paternity pursuant to 19 M.R.S.A. § 280(1)(D) (Supp.1989). Section 280(1)(D) creates a rebuttable presumption that the alleged father is the father of the child when tests reveal a probability of paternity of 97% or…”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 280(1)(D): 5 cases
Denbow v. Harris, 583 A.2d 205 (Me. 1990). “Harris contends on appeal that the blood test results were inadmissible because 19 M.R.S.A. § 280 requires that blood test results show the “probability of the alleged father’s paternity.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Thibeault, 561 A.2d 486 (Me. 1989). “Because the Department did not send the blood samples to die laboratory defendant had agreed to for performance of the tests, the court ruled that the Department was not entitled to the presumption of paternity contained in 19 M.R.S.A. § 280(1)(D) (Supp.1988).”
Atkinson v. Hall, 556 A.2d 651 (Me. 1989). “” 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 280, 280-A. Hall, on the other hand, sought an instruction under M.”
Brougham v. Real, 582 A.2d 970 (Me. 1990). “See 19 M.R.S.A. § 280(1)(D) (Supp.1989). Real failed to appear at a scheduled jury trial, and the court defaulted him and conducted a nonjury trial in his absence.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Jackson, 568 A.2d 519 (Me. 1990). “15% probability of paternity, thus creating a presumption of paternity pursuant to 19 M.R.S.A. § 280(1)(D) (Supp.1989). Section 280(1)(D) creates a rebuttable presumption that the alleged father is the father of the child when tests reveal a probability of paternity of 97% or…”
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.