Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1740 (2026)

Communication between courts

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Communication permitted. A court of this State may communicate with a court in another state concerning a proceeding arising under this chapter.

[PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]

2. Participation of parties. The court may allow the parties to participate in the communication. If the parties are not able to participate in the communication, they must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made.

[PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]

3. Communication without informing parties; no record required. Communication between courts on schedules, calendars, court records and similar matters may occur without informing the parties. A record need not be made of the communication.

[PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]

4. Communication and informing parties; record required. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, a record must be made of a communication under this section. The parties must be informed promptly of the communication and granted access to the record.

[PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]

5. Record. For the purposes of this section, "record" means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.

[PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW). PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 2000–2018 · leading case: Cole v. Cushman, 2008 ME 72 (Me. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cole v. Cushman, 2008 ME 72 (Me. 2008). · cites it 6× “See 19-A M.R.S. § 1740. A Maine court has the discretion to allow the parties to participate in such a communication, but “[i]f the parties are not able to participate in the communication, they must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision…”

Eric N. Fitzpatrick v. Arlene McCrary, 2018 ME 48 (Me. 2018). · cites it 6× “60(b)(4) motion because, after Pennsylvania assumed jurisdiction over the child custody matter, Maine necessarily lost jurisdiction over that matter.”

Campbell v. Martin, 2002 ME 112 (Me. 2002). · cites it 2× “[¶ 4] An interstate telephone conference was held between Judge Gunther of the Maine District Court and Judge Johnson *397 of the Montgomery District Court in Kentucky in accordance with 19-A M.R.S.A. § 1740 (Supp.2001). Following that conversation, Judge Gunther entered a…”

Shanoski v. Miller, 2001 ME 139 (Me. 2001). “19-A M.R.S.A. § 1740. A "child custody proceeding” includes a proceeding regarding visitation.”

Rainbow v. Ransom, 2010 ME 22 (Me. 2010). · cites it 2× “However, after the Maine court properly communicated with the Hawaii court, see 19-A M.R.S. § 1740, 4 the Hawaii court declined to exercise its jurisdiction, and both courts concluded that Maine is the more appropriate forum.”

Barclay v. Eckert, 2000 ME 10 (Me. 2000). “1, 2000) (codified at 19-A M.R.S.A. § 1740 (Supp.1999)).”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1740(1) — 1 case

Eric N. Fitzpatrick v. Arlene McCrary, 2018 ME 48 (Me. 2018). “60(b)(4) motion because, after Pennsylvania assumed jurisdiction over the child custody matter, Maine necessarily lost jurisdiction over that matter.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1740(2) — 2 cases

Cole v. Cushman, 2008 ME 72 (Me. 2008). “See 19-A M.R.S. § 1740. A Maine court has the discretion to allow the parties to participate in such a communication, but “[i]f the parties are not able to participate in the communication, they must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision…”

Eric N. Fitzpatrick v. Arlene McCrary, 2018 ME 48 (Me. 2018). “60(b)(4) motion because, after Pennsylvania assumed jurisdiction over the child custody matter, Maine necessarily lost jurisdiction over that matter.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1740(4) — 1 case

Campbell v. Martin, 2002 ME 112 (Me. 2002). “[¶ 4] An interstate telephone conference was held between Judge Gunther of the Maine District Court and Judge Johnson *397 of the Montgomery District Court in Kentucky in accordance with 19-A M.R.S.A. § 1740 (Supp.2001). Following that conversation, Judge Gunther entered 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.