Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 28
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 28, § 252-A (2026)

Hearings; commission review; appeal

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1981, c. 366, §5 (NEW). PL 1983, c. 18 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 215, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 45, §A3 (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 4 cases, 1983–2003 · leading case: Oronoka Restaurant, Inc. v. Maine State Liquor Comm'n, 532 A.2d 1043 (Me. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Oronoka Restaurant, Inc. v. Maine State Liquor Comm'n, 532 A.2d 1043 (Me. 1987). · cites it 7× “1 On February 10, 1986, the municipal officers of the Town of Orono (Town), conducted a public hearing on the application pursuant to 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A (Pamph.1986) and voted unanimously to deny the application for renewal.”
Ullis v. Inhabitants of Town of Boothbay Harbor, 459 A.2d 153 (Me. 1983). · cites it 4× “In each case the applicant appealed to the State Liquor Commission pursuant to 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A(3) (Supp.1982-1983), which states, “Any applicant aggrieved by the decision of the municipal officers .”
Smith v. Town of Pittston, 2003 ME 46 (Me. 2003). · cites it 2× “[5] In another context, we have held that a Town ordinance restricting the granting of liquor licenses worked at "cross purposes" with the extensive statutory scheme regulating alcohol found in 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A(1) (repealed 1987). Ullis v.”
Driggin v. Town of Wells, 509 A.2d 1171 (Me. 1986). · cites it 5× “*1173 The municipal officers gave no reasons for their denial of the application, as required by 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A(2). 1 Plaintiffs forthwith appealed this decision to the State Liquor Commission (Commission), which held a public hearing in Wells on April 5, 1984.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 28, § 252-A(1) — 1 case
Smith v. Town of Pittston, 2003 ME 46 (Me. 2003). “[5] In another context, we have held that a Town ordinance restricting the granting of liquor licenses worked at "cross purposes" with the extensive statutory scheme regulating alcohol found in 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A(1) (repealed 1987). Ullis v.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 28, § 252-A(2) — 2 cases
Oronoka Restaurant, Inc. v. Maine State Liquor Comm'n, 532 A.2d 1043 (Me. 1987). “1 On February 10, 1986, the municipal officers of the Town of Orono (Town), conducted a public hearing on the application pursuant to 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A (Pamph.1986) and voted unanimously to deny the application for renewal.”
Driggin v. Town of Wells, 509 A.2d 1171 (Me. 1986). “*1173 The municipal officers gave no reasons for their denial of the application, as required by 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A(2). 1 Plaintiffs forthwith appealed this decision to the State Liquor Commission (Commission), which held a public hearing in Wells on April 5, 1984.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 28, § 252-A(3) — 2 cases
Ullis v. Inhabitants of Town of Boothbay Harbor, 459 A.2d 153 (Me. 1983). “In each case the applicant appealed to the State Liquor Commission pursuant to 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A(3) (Supp.1982-1983), which states, “Any applicant aggrieved by the decision of the municipal officers .”
Oronoka Restaurant, Inc. v. Maine State Liquor Comm'n, 532 A.2d 1043 (Me. 1987). “1 On February 10, 1986, the municipal officers of the Town of Orono (Town), conducted a public hearing on the application pursuant to 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A (Pamph.1986) and voted unanimously to deny the application for renewal.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 28, § 252-A(3)(B) — 2 cases
Oronoka Restaurant, Inc. v. Maine State Liquor Comm'n, 532 A.2d 1043 (Me. 1987). “1 On February 10, 1986, the municipal officers of the Town of Orono (Town), conducted a public hearing on the application pursuant to 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A (Pamph.1986) and voted unanimously to deny the application for renewal.”
Driggin v. Town of Wells, 509 A.2d 1171 (Me. 1986). “*1173 The municipal officers gave no reasons for their denial of the application, as required by 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A(2). 1 Plaintiffs forthwith appealed this decision to the State Liquor Commission (Commission), which held a public hearing in Wells on April 5, 1984.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 28, § 252-A(5) — 1 case
Ullis v. Inhabitants of Town of Boothbay Harbor, 459 A.2d 153 (Me. 1983). “In each case the applicant appealed to the State Liquor Commission pursuant to 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A(3) (Supp.1982-1983), which states, “Any applicant aggrieved by the decision of the municipal officers .”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 28, § 252-A(l) — 2 cases
Ullis v. Inhabitants of Town of Boothbay Harbor, 459 A.2d 153 (Me. 1983). “In each case the applicant appealed to the State Liquor Commission pursuant to 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A(3) (Supp.1982-1983), which states, “Any applicant aggrieved by the decision of the municipal officers .”
Driggin v. Town of Wells, 509 A.2d 1171 (Me. 1986). “*1173 The municipal officers gave no reasons for their denial of the application, as required by 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A(2). 1 Plaintiffs forthwith appealed this decision to the State Liquor Commission (Commission), which held a public hearing in Wells on April 5, 1984.”
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.