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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 807 (2026)

Simultaneous proceedings in other states

✓ 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(REPEALED)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. 481, §4 (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, 1983–1995 · leading case: Wambold v. Wambold, 651 A.2d 330 (Me. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wambold v. Wambold, 651 A.2d 330 (Me. 1994). · cites it 4× “Whether the court had a clear picture that something was happening in Washington, the assumption of jurisdiction was problematic.”
Peterson v. Peterson, 464 A.2d 202 (Me. 1983). “19 M.R.S.A. § 807(1) (1981). The PKPA, likewise, states: A court of a State shall not exercise jurisdiction in any proceeding for a custody determination commenced during the pendency of a proceeding in a court of another State where such court of that other State is exercising…”
In re Marriage of Payne, 899 P.2d 1318 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “2d at 204 (quoting 19 M.R.S.A. § 807(1) (1981)). The Peterson court held that filing a petition in the first state is insufficient to preclude the second state from exercising jurisdiction, because the first state is not yet "exercising jurisdiction.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 807(1) — 3 cases
Wambold v. Wambold, 651 A.2d 330 (Me. 1994). “Whether the court had a clear picture that something was happening in Washington, the assumption of jurisdiction was problematic.”
Peterson v. Peterson, 464 A.2d 202 (Me. 1983). “19 M.R.S.A. § 807(1) (1981). The PKPA, likewise, states: A court of a State shall not exercise jurisdiction in any proceeding for a custody determination commenced during the pendency of a proceeding in a court of another State where such court of that other State is exercising…”
In re Marriage of Payne, 899 P.2d 1318 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “2d at 204 (quoting 19 M.R.S.A. § 807(1) (1981)). The Peterson court held that filing a petition in the first state is insufficient to preclude the second state from exercising jurisdiction, because the first state is not yet "exercising jurisdiction.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 807(3) — 1 case
Wambold v. Wambold, 651 A.2d 330 (Me. 1994). “Whether the court had a clear picture that something was happening in Washington, the assumption of jurisdiction was problematic.”
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.