Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 381 (2026)

Findings and declaration of purpose

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1983, c. 579, §10 (NEW). PL 1985, c. 278 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 565, §1 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 653, §B4 (RP). PL 1995, c. 653, §B8 (AFF).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1989–1994 · leading case: Bartley v. E. Maine Med. Ctr., 617 A.2d 1020 (Me. 1992).
Bartley v. E. Maine Med. Ctr., 617 A.2d 1020 (Me. 1992). · cites it 2× “See 22 M.R.S.A. § 381 (1992) (findings and purposes of law creating Maine Health Care Finance Commission revealing concern for rapidly rising costs of hospital care and goal to limit same).”
Cent. Maine Med. Ctr. v. Maine Health Care Fin. Comm'n, 644 A.2d 1383 (Me. 1994). · cites it 2× “As evidence of a clear legislative plan here, the Commission points to the Legislature's express finding that the previous, unregulated system of hospital finance "fail[ed] to assure that hospitals will charge those they serve no more than is needed to meet their reasonable…”
Mercy Hosp. v. Maine Health Care Fin. Comm'n, 559 A.2d 352 (Me. 1989). “22 M.R.S.A. §§ 381(2), 383, 386 and 396 (Supp.”
E. Maine Med. Ctr. v. Maine Health Care Fin. Comm'n, 632 A.2d 749 (Me. 1993). “22 M.R.S.A. § 381 et seq. authorizes the Commission to limit increases in the costs charged by hospitals.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 381(1)(B)(1) — 1 case
Cent. Maine Med. Ctr. v. Maine Health Care Fin. Comm'n, 644 A.2d 1383 (Me. 1994). “As evidence of a clear legislative plan here, the Commission points to the Legislature's express finding that the previous, unregulated system of hospital finance "fail[ed] to assure that hospitals will charge those they serve no more than is needed to meet their reasonable…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 381(2) — 1 case
Mercy Hosp. v. Maine Health Care Fin. Comm'n, 559 A.2d 352 (Me. 1989). “22 M.R.S.A. §§ 381(2), 383, 386 and 396 (Supp.”
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.