Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 1192 (2026)

Eligibility conditions

✓ 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(REPEALED)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. 381, §§11,12 (AMD). PL 1965, c. 409 (AMD). PL 1967, c. 340 (AMD). PL 1967, c. 398, §3 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 538, §§23-27 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 555, §13 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 8 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 25 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 26 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 344, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 448 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 568, §3 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 770, §122 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 570, §§21,22 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 585, §2 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 165, §2 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 496, §1 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 515, §§13-14 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 579, §§21,22 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 651, §§22,23,47 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 220 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 548, §2 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 13, §7 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 129 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 257, §1 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 351, §16 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 510 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 816, §A22 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 348, §5 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 570, §3 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 861, §21 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 502, §§A109,A110 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 377, §14 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 870, §3 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 885, §E39 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 885, §E47 (AFF). RR 1995, c. 1, §23 (COR). PL 1995, c. 222, §1 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 665, §DD1 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 665, §DD12 (AFF). PL 1999, c. 705, §1 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 458, §1 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 454, §1 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 352, Pt. C, §1 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 271, §3 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 466, §2 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 645, §§2-5 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 314, §1 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 474, §§1, 2 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 110, §8 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 117, §§4, 5 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 453, §§1-5 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 475, Pt. A, §44 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 348, §39 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 456, §§17-21 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 676, Pt. A, §44 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 233, §§1-3 (AMD). RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. E, §§89-92 (COR). PL 2025, c. 235, §10 (RP).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 33 cases, 1978–2016 · leading case: Samantha Ramelli v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2016 ME 6 (Me. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Samantha Ramelli v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2016 ME 6 (Me. 2016). · cites it 4× “Because we do not reach the merits of Ramelli’s argument and because, in any event, the issue was not raised by the parties in this appeal, we do not consider whether the Commission applied the correct version of 26 M.R.S. § 1192.”

Sarah E. Cheney v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2016 ME 105 (Me. 2016). · cites it 9× “” 26 M.R.S. § 1192(13) (2016). [¶8] The Commission’s rules provide "that [i]n order to be considered to be “available for work,” a claimant must be “attached to .”

McKenzie v. Maine Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 453 A.2d 505 (Me. 1982). · cites it 3× “, whether an applicant for unemployment compensation who was erroneously declared ineligible to receive any benefits on the ground of insufficient wage credits should be awarded those benefits retroactively after the mistake is discovered, even though he failed in the interim to…”

Page v. Gen. Elec. Co., 391 A.2d 303 (Me. 1978). · cites it 3× “See 26 M.R.S.A. §§ 1192, 1193 for the conditions for eligibility for unemployment compensation.”

Crocker v. Maine Emp. Sec. Com'n, 450 A.2d 469 (Me. 1982). · cites it 2× “" [2] 26 M.R.S.A. § 1192, provides as follows: An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if: (3) Is able and available for work.”

Radvanovsky v. Maine Dep't of Manpower Affairs Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 427 A.2d 961 (Me. 1981). · cites it 4× “The Maine Employment Security Commission denied Francis Radvanovsky's application for unemployment benefits on the grounds that he had not earned sufficient remuneration to requalify for benefits pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. § 1192(5). On appeal, the Superior Court held the…”

Stubbs v. Bartlett, 478 A.2d 690 (Me. 1984). “26 M.R.S.A. § 1192(3) (Supp.1983-1984). In any event, there is reason to doubt'that any of this information is within the common knowledge of the jury.”

Coates v. Maine Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 406 A.2d 94 (Me. 1979). “Because claimant did not file for benefits until after the thirteen-week disqualification period had expired, see 26 M.R.S.A. § 1192(1) (Supp.1978), we do not review the correctness of the Commission’s finding that she had on September 23, 1977, left her “regular employment…”

Tobin v. Maine Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 420 A.2d 222 (Me. 1980). “26 M.R.S.A. § 1192(3). It is apparent from the findings of the Appeal Tribunal that the Commission placed substantial emphasis on plaintiff’s limited job search.”

Coker v. City of Lewiston, 1998 ME 93 (Me. 1998). “No claims for compensation under this Act are assignable or subject to attachment or liable in any way for debt, except for the enforcement of a current support obligation or support arrears pursuant to Title 19-A, chapter 65, subchapter II, article 3 or Title 19-A, chapter 65,…”

Keller v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 477 A.2d 1159 (Me. 1984). · cites it 2× “R.S.A. § 1192(1) & (2) (Supp.1983-1984) (eligibility dependent on filing claim in accordance with Commission regulations); Commission Rules, ch.”

Davidson v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 998 F. Supp. 1 (D. Me. 1998). “” -26 M.R.S.A. § 1192(3). 15 Second, Plaintiff applied for a substantial number of clerical positions involving a variety of tasks such as filing, answering phones, telephone solicitation, and cashiering.”

Show all 33 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 1192(1) — 7 cases

Coates v. Maine Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 406 A.2d 94 (Me. 1979). “Because claimant did not file for benefits until after the thirteen-week disqualification period had expired, see 26 M.R.S.A. § 1192(1) (Supp.1978), we do not review the correctness of the Commission’s finding that she had on September 23, 1977, left her “regular employment…”

McKenzie v. Maine Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 453 A.2d 505 (Me. 1982). “, whether an applicant for unemployment compensation who was erroneously declared ineligible to receive any benefits on the ground of insufficient wage credits should be awarded those benefits retroactively after the mistake is discovered, even though he failed in the interim to…”

Keller v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 477 A.2d 1159 (Me. 1984). “R.S.A. § 1192(1) & (2) (Supp.1983-1984) (eligibility dependent on filing claim in accordance with Commission regulations); Commission Rules, ch.”

Donlin v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n (Me. Super. Ct 2014).

Hegarty v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n (Me. Super. Ct 2008).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 1192(12) — 1 case

Ferlisi v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n (Me. Super. Ct 2013).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 1192(13) — 3 cases

Sarah E. Cheney v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2016 ME 105 (Me. 2016). “” 26 M.R.S. § 1192(13) (2016). [¶8] The Commission’s rules provide "that [i]n order to be considered to be “available for work,” a claimant must be “attached to .”

Cheney v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 149 A.3d 262 (Me. 2016).

Ferlisi v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n (Me. Super. Ct 2013).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 1192(2) — 2 cases

Samantha Ramelli v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2016 ME 6 (Me. 2016). “Because we do not reach the merits of Ramelli’s argument and because, in any event, the issue was not raised by the parties in this appeal, we do not consider whether the Commission applied the correct version of 26 M.R.S. § 1192.”

Page v. Gen. Elec. Co., 391 A.2d 303 (Me. 1978). “See 26 M.R.S.A. §§ 1192, 1193 for the conditions for eligibility for unemployment compensation.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 1192(3) — 15 cases

Sarah E. Cheney v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2016 ME 105 (Me. 2016). “” 26 M.R.S. § 1192(13) (2016). [¶8] The Commission’s rules provide "that [i]n order to be considered to be “available for work,” a claimant must be “attached to .”

Stubbs v. Bartlett, 478 A.2d 690 (Me. 1984). “26 M.R.S.A. § 1192(3) (Supp.1983-1984). In any event, there is reason to doubt'that any of this information is within the common knowledge of the jury.”

Tobin v. Maine Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 420 A.2d 222 (Me. 1980). “26 M.R.S.A. § 1192(3). It is apparent from the findings of the Appeal Tribunal that the Commission placed substantial emphasis on plaintiff’s limited job search.”

Crocker v. Maine Emp. Sec. Com'n, 450 A.2d 469 (Me. 1982). “" [2] 26 M.R.S.A. § 1192, provides as follows: An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if: (3) Is able and available for work.”

Page v. Gen. Elec. Co., 391 A.2d 303 (Me. 1978). “See 26 M.R.S.A. §§ 1192, 1193 for the conditions for eligibility for unemployment compensation.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 1192(5) — 4 cases

Radvanovsky v. Maine Dep't of Manpower Affairs Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 427 A.2d 961 (Me. 1981). “The Maine Employment Security Commission denied Francis Radvanovsky's application for unemployment benefits on the grounds that he had not earned sufficient remuneration to requalify for benefits pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. § 1192(5). On appeal, the Superior Court held the…”

McKenzie v. Maine Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 453 A.2d 505 (Me. 1982). “, whether an applicant for unemployment compensation who was erroneously declared ineligible to receive any benefits on the ground of insufficient wage credits should be awarded those benefits retroactively after the mistake is discovered, even though he failed in the interim to…”

Coker v. City of Lewiston, 1998 ME 93 (Me. 1998). “No claims for compensation under this Act are assignable or subject to attachment or liable in any way for debt, except for the enforcement of a current support obligation or support arrears pursuant to Title 19-A, chapter 65, subchapter II, article 3 or Title 19-A, chapter 65,…”

Dibner v. Maine Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 432 A.2d 788 (Me. 1981).

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.