Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 29
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 781 (2026)

Definitions

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1969, c. 132, §9 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 318, §9 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 363, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 652 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 694, §508 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 341, §§4,7 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 715, §2 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 683, §A1 (RP). PL 1993, c. 683, §B5 (AFF).
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, 1970–1986 · leading case: State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Universal Underwriters Ins., 513 A.2d 283 (Me. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Universal Underwriters Ins., 513 A.2d 283 (Me. 1986). “In McLain we found that the relevant insurance policy, in purporting to limit coverage to non-owned vehicles, did not meet the requirements of the mandatory financial responsibility law, 29 M.R.S.A. § 781 et seq. (1969), and was, therefore, invalid.”
Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins., 458 A.2d 1205 (Me. 1983). · cites it 4× “29 M.R.S.A. § 781(1)(A). 2 The Form SR-22 that GEICO submitted on behalf of Kill did not contain an expiration date.”
Govern. Emp. Ins. v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins., 458 A.2d 1205 (Me. 1983). · cites it 4× “29 M.R.S.A. § 781(1)(A). [2] The Form SR-22 that GEICO submitted on behalf of Ifill did not contain an expiration date.”
Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. v. McLain, 270 A.2d 362 (Me. 1970). “One Lee was required to furnish proof of financial responsibility under the provisions of 29 M.R.S.A. § 781 et seq. 1 Plaintiff certified coverage of Lee by what is known as an “Operator’s” policy, “applicable to any non-owned vehicle,” which policy, effective March 13, 1969,…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 781(1)(A) — 2 cases
Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins., 458 A.2d 1205 (Me. 1983). “29 M.R.S.A. § 781(1)(A). 2 The Form SR-22 that GEICO submitted on behalf of Kill did not contain an expiration date.”
Govern. Emp. Ins. v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins., 458 A.2d 1205 (Me. 1983). “29 M.R.S.A. § 781(1)(A). [2] The Form SR-22 that GEICO submitted on behalf of Ifill did not contain an expiration date.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 781(1)(D) — 2 cases
Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins., 458 A.2d 1205 (Me. 1983). “29 M.R.S.A. § 781(1)(A). 2 The Form SR-22 that GEICO submitted on behalf of Kill did not contain an expiration date.”
Govern. Emp. Ins. v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins., 458 A.2d 1205 (Me. 1983). “29 M.R.S.A. § 781(1)(A). [2] The Form SR-22 that GEICO submitted on behalf of Ifill did not contain an expiration date.”
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.