Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 309 (2026)

Principles governing the review of applications

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1977, c. 687, §1 (NEW). PL 1981, c. 705, §§V31-V33 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 579, §9 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 338, §3 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 418, §§13-15 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 661, §§4-6 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 436, §6 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 501, §P24 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 502, §A65 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 410, §FF3 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 477, §D4 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 477, §F1 (AFF). PL 1995, c. 462, §A41 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 696, §§A25-30 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 689, §§B29,30 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 689, §C2 (AFF). PL 2001, c. 664, §1 (RP).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1981–2008 · leading case: York Hosp. v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2008 ME 165 (Me. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

York Hosp. v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2008 ME 165 (Me. 2008). “22 M.R.S.A. § 309 (2001). On February 4, 2003, the Commissioner awarded the CON to SMMC/MMC.”

York Hosp. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 2005 ME 41 (Me. 2005). “The Department followed the dictates of the statute and concluded that it was preferable not to permit the Collaborative to develop the radiation facility in part because one hospital in the Collaborative was located in New Hampshire, thereby exempting it from Maine’s licensing…”

Hale v. Petit, 438 A.2d 226 (Me. 1981). “Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 309(2) does list several criteria, but instructs that the department shall consider them “among other criteria.”

Magnetic Resonance Tech. of Maine Ltd. P'ship v. Comm'r, Maine Dep't of Human Servs., 652 A.2d 655 (Me. 1995). · cites it 2× “” 22 M.R.S.A. § 309(1)(B). The Commissioner stated in her decision: I find no need to invest in new major medical equipment at this time.”

Magnetic Resonance v. DEPT. OF HUM. SER., 652 A.2d 655 (Me. 1995). · cites it 2× “" 22 M.R.S.A. § 309(1)(B). The Commissioner stated in her decision: I find no need to invest in new major medical equipment at this time.”

Aroostook Home Care Agency, Inc. v. Comm'r of Human Servs., 552 A.2d 538 (Me. 1988). · cites it 2× “See 22 M.R.S.A. § 309(1) (Supp. 1988) (principles for determination to issue a certificate of need).”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 309(1) — 1 case

Aroostook Home Care Agency, Inc. v. Comm'r of Human Servs., 552 A.2d 538 (Me. 1988). “See 22 M.R.S.A. § 309(1) (Supp. 1988) (principles for determination to issue a certificate of need).”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 309(1)(B) — 2 cases

Magnetic Resonance Tech. of Maine Ltd. P'ship v. Comm'r, Maine Dep't of Human Servs., 652 A.2d 655 (Me. 1995). “” 22 M.R.S.A. § 309(1)(B). The Commissioner stated in her decision: I find no need to invest in new major medical equipment at this time.”

Magnetic Resonance v. DEPT. OF HUM. SER., 652 A.2d 655 (Me. 1995). “" 22 M.R.S.A. § 309(1)(B). The Commissioner stated in her decision: I find no need to invest in new major medical equipment at this time.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 309(1)(C) — 2 cases

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 309(1)(D) — 1 case

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 309(2) — 2 cases

Hale v. Petit, 438 A.2d 226 (Me. 1981). “Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 309(2) does list several criteria, but instructs that the department shall consider them “among other criteria.”

Aroostook Home Care Agency, Inc. v. Comm'r of Human Servs., 552 A.2d 538 (Me. 1988). “See 22 M.R.S.A. § 309(1) (Supp. 1988) (principles for determination to issue a certificate of need).”

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.