Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 23, § 63 (2026)

Confidentiality of records held by the department and the Maine Turnpike Authority

✓ current as of May 2026

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

1. Confidential records. The following records in the possession of the department and the Maine Turnpike Authority are confidential and may not be disclosed, except as provided in this section:

A. Records and correspondence relating to negotiations for and appraisals of property; and [PL 2011, c. 524, §5 (NEW).]

B. Records and data relating to engineering estimates of costs on projects to be put out to bid. [PL 2011, c. 524, §5 (NEW).]

[PL 2011, c. 524, §5 (NEW).]

2. Engineering estimates. Engineering estimates of total project costs are public records after the execution of project contracts.

[PL 2011, c. 524, §5 (NEW).]

3. Records relating to negotiations and appraisals. The records and correspondence relating to negotiations for and appraisals of property are public records beginning 9 months after the completion date of the project according to the record of the department or Maine Turnpike Authority, except that records of claims that have been appealed to the Superior Court are public records following the award of the court.

[PL 2011, c. 524, §5 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1971, c. 593, §22 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 158, §1 (RPR). PL 2011, c. 524, §5 (RPR).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1992–2016 · leading case: Terrence E. Pinkham v. Dep't of Transp., 2016 ME 74 (Me. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Terrence E. Pinkham v. Dep't of Transp., 2016 ME 74 (Me. 2016). · cites it 9× “1 Pinkham contends that the court erred by ruling that the MDOT was not required to provide in discovery those portions of its appraiser’s report appraising other properties taken for the project pursuant to 23 M.R.S. § 63 (2015). We agree, and vacate the judgment.”

Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 754 A.2d 353 (Me. 2000). · cites it 5× “After examining the documents and considering the briefs of the parties, the Superior Court held that documents 2, 5, and 6 were not public records because they were records relating to engineering costs of projects that were to be put out to bid, making them confidential…”

Med. Mut. Ins. v. Bureau of Ins., 2005 ME 12 (Me. 2005). “, 23 M.R.S.A. § 63 (Supp.2004) (providing that certain records of the right-of-way divisions of the Department of Transportation “are confidential and may not be open for public inspection”); 30-A M.”

Davric Maine Corp. v. Maine Dep't of Transp., 606 A.2d 201 (Me. 1992). · cites it 3× “We agree with the Superior Court that such documents are designated confidential by 23 M.R.S.A. § 63 (1992) and, pursuant to 1 M.”

Springfield Term. Ry. v. Dept. of Transp., 2000 ME 126 (Me. 2000). · cites it 5× “After examining the documents and considering the briefs of the parties, the Superior Court held that documents 2, 5, and 6 were not public records because they were records relating to engineering costs of projects that were to be put out to bid, making them confidential…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 23, § 63(2) — 1 case

Terrence E. Pinkham v. Dep't of Transp., 2016 ME 74 (Me. 2016). “1 Pinkham contends that the court erred by ruling that the MDOT was not required to provide in discovery those portions of its appraiser’s report appraising other properties taken for the project pursuant to 23 M.R.S. § 63 (2015). We agree, and vacate the judgment.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 23, § 63(3) — 1 case

Terrence E. Pinkham v. Dep't of Transp., 2016 ME 74 (Me. 2016). “1 Pinkham contends that the court erred by ruling that the MDOT was not required to provide in discovery those portions of its appraiser’s report appraising other properties taken for the project pursuant to 23 M.R.S. § 63 (2015). We agree, and vacate the judgment.”

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.