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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 769 (2026)

Violation

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1979, c. 578, §§5,7 (NEW). PL 1979, c. 677, §§16,18 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 862, §20 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 469, §4 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 469, §4 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 668, §4 (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 9 cases, 1990–2002 · leading case: Henriksen v. Cameron, 622 A.2d 1135 (Me. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Henriksen v. Cameron, 622 A.2d 1135 (Me. 1993). · cites it 2× “19 M.R.S.A. § 769 (1981 & Supp.1992). These provisions, however, provide no compensatory relief for injuries sustained.”
State v. Nastvogel, 2002 ME 97 (Me. 2002). “§ 321 (Supp *1118 2001) (protective orders in crimes between family members), former 19 M.R.S.A. § 769 (1981), repealed by P.L.”
Cooke v. Naylor, 573 A.2d 376 (Me. 1990). “Freeman arises under the Act only after a protective order has been issued and that order has been violated and only then comes following arrest for contempt or for a Class D crime, see 19 M.R.S.A. § 769. The protective order at issue in this case essentially enjoined Naylor to…”
State v. Carr, 1998 ME 237 (Me. 1998). “§ 805(1)(A) (1983) (amended 1995), and IX, pursuant to 19 M.R.S.A. § 769 (1983) (repealed 1997), alleged that Carr intentionally damaged an automobile in an amount exceeding $1000 in value, and violated a protective order, respectively.”
State v. Smith, 618 A.2d 208 (Me. 1992). “1991); and violation of an order for protection from abuse, 19 M.R.S.A. § 769(1) (Supp.1991). After a jury trial in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Alexander, J), Smith was acquitted on the gross sexual assault charge, but convicted on the other two charges.”
State v. Haley, 629 A.2d 605 (Me. 1993). · cites it 3× “19 M.R.S.A. § 769 (1981 & Supp.1992). He contends that the statute under which he was prosecuted did not categorize as criminal the behavior for which he was convicted.”
State v. Robinson, 656 A.2d 744 (Me. 1995). “1994), and a violation of a temporary protection order, 19 M.R.S.A. § 769 (1983 & Supp.1994). 1 Robinson argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion by admitting certain evidence at trial and that he was improperly charged with burglary.”
State v. Jordan, 659 A.2d 849 (Me. 1995). “) following jury verdicts finding him guilty of six counts of violating a permanent order for protection from abuse, 19 M.R.S.A. § 769 (1981 & Supp.1994) (Class D); one count of filing a false public report, 17-A M.”
State v. Attanasio, 577 A.2d 344 (Me. 1990). “§ 209 (1983), and violation of a protection order, 19 M.R.S.A. § 769 (1981), following a plea of guilty.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 769(1): 1 case
State v. Smith, 618 A.2d 208 (Me. 1992). “1991); and violation of an order for protection from abuse, 19 M.R.S.A. § 769(1) (Supp.1991). After a jury trial in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Alexander, J), Smith was acquitted on the gross sexual assault charge, but convicted on the other two charges.”
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.