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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 515 (2026)

Administrative review

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1975, c. 532, §3 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 623, §§19-A (AMD). PL 1977, c. 694, §301 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 259, §§9-11 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 657, §9 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 652, §§39,40 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 337, §6 (AMD). 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 5 cases, 1989–1994 · leading case: Wellman v. Dep't of Human Servs., 574 A.2d 879 (Me. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wellman v. Dep't of Human Servs., 574 A.2d 879 (Me. 1990). “The first proceeding was followed by an administrative review hearing held pursuant to 19 M.R.S.A. § 515 (1981 & Supp.1989). 4 .”
Trimble v. Comm'r, Dep't of Human Servs., 635 A.2d 937 (Me. 1993). “Following an administrative hearing pursuant to 19 M.R.S.A. § 515 (1981 & Supp.1992), at which Trimble testified and argued that the equitable defense of laches should defeat the support enforcement action, the hearing officer found an arrearage of $36,500.”
Ashley v. State, 642 A.2d 176 (Me. 1994). “1993); 19 M.R.S.A. § 515(2-A)(B) (Supp.1993). Ashley’s estoppel defense could not prevail on the facts of this case because his reliance on a private agreement with his former wife to ignore the court order to pay child support was neither reasonable nor justifiable.”
Schneider v. Dep't of Human Servs., 617 A.2d 211 (Me. 1992). “The hearing officer found that Schneider owed child support arrearage of $4,820 and concluded that because of the limitations in 19 M.R.S.A. § 515(2-A)(B) (Supp.1991), she lacked jurisdiction to consider the equitable defenses raised by Schneider.”
Jack v. Dep't of Human Servs., 556 A.2d 1093 (Me. 1989). “The Department’s decision was made initially by a hearing officer and was then reviewed and affirmed by a second hearing officer after a further hearing pursuant to 19 M.R.S.A. § 515 (1981 & Supp.1988). 3 .”
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.