Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 26
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 668 (2026)

Posting of summary

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1971, c. 620, §13 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 219, §16 (RP).
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 3 cases, 1998–2016 · leading case: Venegas v. Global Aircraft Serv., Inc., 159 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D. Me. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Venegas v. Global Aircraft Serv., Inc., 159 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D. Me. 2016). “§ 664; see also 26 M.R.S.A. §§ 668(3), 670. The Law Court has not yet had an occasion to describe the test to be used to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor under 26 M.”
Hayden-Tidd v. Cliff House & Motels, Inc., 52 A.3d 925 (Me. 2012). “The statute now includes a definition of “tip,” stating: “Tip” means a sum presented by a customer in recognition of services performed by one or more service employees, including a charge automatically included in the customer’s bill.”
Schlear v. James Newspapers, Inc., 1998 ME 215 (Me. 1998). “[¶2] On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the Superior Court should have determined that Small was an employee of the defendant, as defined by 26 M.R.S.A. § 668(3) (1988) and that Small and Schlear are owed unpaid minimum wages required to be paid by 26 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 668(15) — 1 case
Hayden-Tidd v. Cliff House & Motels, Inc., 52 A.3d 925 (Me. 2012). “The statute now includes a definition of “tip,” stating: “Tip” means a sum presented by a customer in recognition of services performed by one or more service employees, including a charge automatically included in the customer’s bill.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 668(3) — 2 cases
Venegas v. Global Aircraft Serv., Inc., 159 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D. Me. 2016). “§ 664; see also 26 M.R.S.A. §§ 668(3), 670. The Law Court has not yet had an occasion to describe the test to be used to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor under 26 M.”
Schlear v. James Newspapers, Inc., 1998 ME 215 (Me. 1998). “[¶2] On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the Superior Court should have determined that Small was an employee of the defendant, as defined by 26 M.R.S.A. § 668(3) (1988) and that Small and Schlear are owed unpaid minimum wages required to be paid by 26 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.