Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 23
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 23, § 3029 (2026)

Damages; appeal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Damages must be determined using the methods in sections 154 to 154‑E, as far as practicable, except that references to the "commission" or the "board" mean the "municipal officers" and references to the "state" mean the "municipality."   [RR 2021, c. 2, Pt. A, §65 (COR).]
Any person aggrieved by the determination of the damages awarded to owners of property or interests therein under this chapter may, within 60 days after the day of taking, appeal to the Superior Court in the county where the property lies. The court shall determine damages by a verdict of its jury or, if all parties agree, by the court without a jury or by a referee or referees and shall render judgment for just compensation, with interest where such is due, and for costs in favor of the party entitled thereto.   [PL 1975, c. 711, §8 (NEW).]
Any person aggrieved by the action or nonaction of municipal officers or the municipal legislative body in proceedings under this chapter, other than a determination of damages, may appeal to the Superior Court in the county where the property lies, pursuant to Rule 80B of the Rules of Civil Procedure.   [PL 1975, c. 711, §8 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 711, §8 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 479, §5 (AMD). RR 2021, c. 2, Pt. A, §65 (COR).
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 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: Paul v. Town of Liberty, 151 A.3d 924 (Me. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Paul v. Town of Liberty, 151 A.3d 924 (Me. 2016). · cites it 7× “They also contend that the court erred by determining that they are not entitled to damages, which they sought pursuant to 23 M.R.S. § 3029 (2015) in Count- II of the complaint based on a determination by the Town of Liberty Select Board that a road abutting their *927 property…”
Portland Co. v. City of Portland, 2009 ME 98 (Me. 2009). · cites it 3× “In the November 14 judgment, the court notes that the Portland Company’s claim for attorney fees is based on state and federal statutes, including 23 M.R.S. § 3029 (2008); 23 M.R.S. § 154 (2008); 42 U.”
Frustaci v. City of South Portland, 879 A.2d 1001 (Me. 2005). · cites it 3× “) following a jury verdict in favor of Joseph Frustaci on Frustaci’s claims for statutory damages pursuant to 23 M.R.S.A. § 3029 (1992) based on the City’s discontinuance of two roads that abutted his property.”
Darlene F. Edwards v. Cynthia S. Blackman, 2015 ME 165 (Me. 2015). · cites it 2× “See 23 M.R.S. § 3029 (2014) (allowing any person “aggrieved” by an act of the municipal legislative- body in a dedication proceeding to bring an appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to M.”
J.A. Rapaport Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. City of Brewer, 877 A.2d 1077 (Me. 2005). · cites it 4× “See 23 M.R.S.A. § 3029; M.R. Civ. P. 80B. While the case was pending and before the old road was discontinued, the Rapaports sold their remaining property to neighboring landowners.”
Earwood v. Town of York, 1999 ME 3 (Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “Contrary to the Town’s assertion, 23 M.R.S.A. § 3029 (1992) 3 does not make M .”
City of South Portland v. Maine Mun. Ass'n, 2008 ME 128 (Me. 2008). “[¶ 10] Our decision in the underlying case between Frustaci and the City concluded that Frustaci’s claim for damages pursuant to 23 M.R.S. § 3029 was entirely independent of his inverse condemnation claim, and the fact that Frustaci did not prevail on the inverse condemnation…”
Lamb v. Town of Farmington, 846 A.2d 333 (Me. 2004). “[¶ 6] As a result of the discontinuance, Lamb filed a timely complaint in the Superior Court, which stated that it was filed pursuant to 23 M.R.S.A. § 3029 (1992) and M.R. Civ. P.”
Adam P. Paul v. Town of Liberty, 2016 ME 173 (Me. 2016). · cites it 5× “80B, challenging the Town’s determination that the road has been abandoned, and Count II sought an award of damages pursuant to 23 M.R.S. § 3029. The Town moved to dismiss the complaint on March 18, 2015, asserting that the Rule 80B complaint was not timely filed and the Pauls…”
Northwoods Land Co. of Maine v. Kennebunk, Kennebunkport & Wells Water Dist., 868 A.2d 193 (Me. 2005). “23 M.R.S.A. § 3029 (1992). [¶ 8] Second are the statutes dealing with the laying out of county highways.”
Fedeq Dv004 LLC v. City of Portland (D. Me. 2022). · cites it 5× “Defendant resists this conclusion, insisting that the exclusive avenue available to Plaintiffs to challenge its exercise of eminent domain—under state and federal law alike—was review in state court pursuant to 23 M.R.S.A. § 3029. (See Def. Mot. (ECF No.”
City of S. Portland v. Maine Mun. Ass'n (Me. Super. Ct 2007). · cites it 6× “The case arises out of an action in Superior Court in which a jury awarded $380,000 in statutory damages to a real estate developer ("Frustaci") pursuant to 23 M.R.S.A. § 3029. Frustaci v. City of S.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 23, § 3029(1992) — 1 case
Earwood v. Town of York, 1999 ME 3 (Me. 1999). “Contrary to the Town’s assertion, 23 M.R.S.A. § 3029 (1992) 3 does not make M .”
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.