Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 941 (2026)

Persons riding animals or driving animal-drawn vehicles

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1983, c. 446, §2 (RPR). PL 1993, c. 683, §A1 (RP). PL 1993, c. 683, §B5 (AFF).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1972–2000 · leading case: State v. Marshall, 451 A.2d 633 (Me. 1982).
State v. Marshall, 451 A.2d 633 (Me. 1982). · cites it 3× “Paul Marshall, the appellant, was found to have committed a traffic infraction in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 941 1 after a hearing in District Court (Farmington).”
Crowe v. Shaw, 2000 ME 136 (Me. 2000). “See 29 M.R.S.A. § 941 (1991) (requiring motorists to travel to the right of the center of the road and to come to a stop when it is unsafe to continue because of an oncoming car), repealed and replaced by P.”
Hinshaw v. Keith, 645 F. Supp. 180 (D. Me. 1986). “In Morrell , the defendant Marshall was adjudicated, after trial, as having violated Maine’s “failure to yield” statute, Me.Rev. Stat.Ann. tit. 29, § 941. He was fined $250 and his license was suspended for 60 days.”
Maine Merchants Ass'n, Inc. v. Campbell, 287 A.2d 430 (Me. 1972). “For example: The Legislature used the word “team” in enacting 29 M.R.S.A. § 941. At that time automobiles were unknown.”
Morrell v. Marshall, 501 A.2d 807 (Me. 1985). “We hold that the Superior Court erred in admitting evidence that the state trooper who investigated the accident issued a summons charging Marshall with violating the “failure to yield” statute, 29 M.R.S.A. § 941 (1978), and that the District Court, after adjudicating that…”
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.