Go Syfert

Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 20, § 225 (2026)

District meetings

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1965, c. 493, §1 (AMD). PL 1967, c. 224, §1 (AMD). PL 1967, c. 295, §2 (AMD). PL 1967, c. 482, §§4,5 (AMD). PL 1967, c. 505, §§1-3 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 162, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 440, §§2-B,2-C (AMD). PL 1969, c. 590, §§24-26 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 180, §§2,3 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 196, §§1-3 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 611, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 536, §1 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 571, §§20-A (AMD). PL 1975, c. 746, §§5-A (AMD). PL 1975, c. 761, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 768, §1 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 78, §127 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 195 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 464, §§4,5 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 690, §§2,3 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 691, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 693, §§1,8 (RP).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Cohen v. Ketchum, 344 A.2d 387 (Me. 1975).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cohen v. Ketchum, 344 A.2d 387 (Me. 1975). · cites it 7× “We regard the decision by the School Board to initiate the school construction capital improvement project through the issuance of securities under 20 M.R.S.A. §§ 225 and 304, and the subsequent required voter approval, as the two actions critical to issuance of the bonds.”

Dobbs v. Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 50, 419 A.2d 1024 (Me. 1980). · cites it 5× “” Chapter 443 added certain sections to the earlier enactment, including the predecessor of 20 M.R.S.A. § 225, the statute with which we are primarily concerned in the present case.”

Heald v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 74, 387 A.2d 1 (Me. 1978). · cites it 3× “They cited 20 M.R.S.A. § 225(2)(A) 2 as support for their request, claiming that a new election is required under the terms of the statute.”

Buck v. Town of Yarmouth, 402 A.2d 860 (Me. 1979). · cites it 2× “2d 1 (1978) is distinguishable as arising under a statute, 20 M.R.S.A. § 225, which authorized school directors to call a meeting for the stated purpose, while the instant case arises under a statute, 30 M.”

Patricia M. Minerich v. Boothbay-Boothbay Harbor Cmty. Sch. Dist., 2026 ME 11 (Me. 2026). · cites it 3× “” 20 M.R.S.A. § 225 (Supp. 1980); Heald, 387 3 In Dobbs, the ultimate question was whether the Board had the authority to seek reconsideration on a prior bond question, not whether the Board had authority to refuse to submit a resident led reconsideration effort for referendum.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 20, § 225(2)(A) — 2 cases

Heald v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 74, 387 A.2d 1 (Me. 1978). “They cited 20 M.R.S.A. § 225(2)(A) 2 as support for their request, claiming that a new election is required under the terms of the statute.”

Patricia M. Minerich v. Boothbay-Boothbay Harbor Cmty. Sch. Dist., 2026 ME 11 (Me. 2026). “” 20 M.R.S.A. § 225 (Supp. 1980); Heald, 387 3 In Dobbs, the ultimate question was whether the Board had the authority to seek reconsideration on a prior bond question, not whether the Board had authority to refuse to submit a resident led reconsideration effort for referendum.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 20, § 225(2)(I) — 1 case

Dobbs v. Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 50, 419 A.2d 1024 (Me. 1980). “” Chapter 443 added certain sections to the earlier enactment, including the predecessor of 20 M.R.S.A. § 225, the statute with which we are primarily concerned in the present case.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 20, § 225(3) — 1 case

Cohen v. Ketchum, 344 A.2d 387 (Me. 1975). “We regard the decision by the School Board to initiate the school construction capital improvement project through the issuance of securities under 20 M.R.S.A. §§ 225 and 304, and the subsequent required voter approval, as the two actions critical to issuance of the bonds.”

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.