Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 30
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 2317 (2026)

Powers and duties of town manager

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1969, c. 438, §1 (NEW). PL 1973, c. 421, §§2-4 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 737, §§A1,C106 (RP). PL 1989, c. 6 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 104, §§C8,C10 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1980–2019 · leading case: Barber v. Inhabitants of Town of Fairfield, 460 A.2d 1001 (Me. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barber v. Inhabitants of Town of Fairfield, 460 A.2d 1001 (Me. 1983). · cites it 6× “Have exclusive authority to remove for cause after notice and hearing all persons whom he is authorized to appoint and report all removals to the board of selectmen.”
Ryan v. Town of Camden, 582 A.2d 973 (Me. 1990). · cites it 3× “30 M.R.S.A. § 2317 was repealed by P.L.1987, ch.”
Jong Hee Small, Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Delbert Small v. The Inhabitants of the City of Belfast & James Murphy, Etc., 796 F.2d 544 (1st Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “30 M.R.S.A. § 2317(1)(A), (C), (E), (F), (N).”
Sirois v. Town of Frenchville, 441 A.2d 291 (Me. 1982). · cites it 2× “Although under that statute the town manager is authorized to act as purchasing agent for the Town, her letter of August 12, 1975, does not indicate that she was purchasing for the Town, but rather that she was accepting responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the…”
Durepos v. Town of Van Buren, 516 A.2d 565 (Me. 1986). · cites it 2× “30 M.R.S.A. § 2317 (1978) states: § 2317.”
Chapman v. City of Rockland, 524 A.2d 46 (Me. 1987). · cites it 2× “30 M.R.S.A. § 2317(1)(N) (1978). 1 Dismissal “for cause” is appropriate when an employee’s conduct affects his ability and fitness to perform his duties.”
Butler v. Inhabitants of Town of Tremont, 412 A.2d 385 (Me. 1980). “In an opinion and order directing entry of judgment for the town, the Superior Court found that it was customary practice for the town to give successful bidders two weeks to secure satisfactory evidence of bondability and ruled that such a purchasing practice was permissible in…”
Barrera v. Town of Brownville, 139 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D. Me. 2001). “at 1005 (discussing 30 M.R.S.A. § 2317(1)(N), which- has since been repealed).”
Guimond v. City of Eastport, No. CUMbcd-cv-18-52 (Me. Super. Ct Apr. 12, 2019). “This rule makes sense, because as noted above, responding to media requests fits easily within 13 The Law Court has previously assumed, without discussion, that the predecessor statute to section 2636 (30 M.R.S.A. § 2317(1)(N) (1978), repealed by P.”
Edgecomb v. Town of Limestone, 538 A.2d 767 (Me. 1988). “Either 30 M.R.S.A. § 2317(1)(N) or § 2361(1) (1978) protect Ed-gecomb from removal except for “cause.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 2317(1)(A): 1 case
Jong Hee Small, Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Delbert Small v. The Inhabitants of the City of Belfast & James Murphy, Etc., 796 F.2d 544 (1st Cir. 1986). “30 M.R.S.A. § 2317(1)(A), (C), (E), (F), (N).”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 2317(1)(E): 1 case
Barber v. Inhabitants of Town of Fairfield, 460 A.2d 1001 (Me. 1983). “Have exclusive authority to remove for cause after notice and hearing all persons whom he is authorized to appoint and report all removals to the board of selectmen.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 2317(1)(F): 2 cases
Ryan v. Town of Camden, 582 A.2d 973 (Me. 1990). “30 M.R.S.A. § 2317 was repealed by P.L.1987, ch.”
Jong Hee Small, Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Delbert Small v. The Inhabitants of the City of Belfast & James Murphy, Etc., 796 F.2d 544 (1st Cir. 1986). “30 M.R.S.A. § 2317(1)(A), (C), (E), (F), (N).”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 2317(1)(N): 6 cases
Barber v. Inhabitants of Town of Fairfield, 460 A.2d 1001 (Me. 1983). “Have exclusive authority to remove for cause after notice and hearing all persons whom he is authorized to appoint and report all removals to the board of selectmen.”
Chapman v. City of Rockland, 524 A.2d 46 (Me. 1987). “30 M.R.S.A. § 2317(1)(N) (1978). 1 Dismissal “for cause” is appropriate when an employee’s conduct affects his ability and fitness to perform his duties.”
Durepos v. Town of Van Buren, 516 A.2d 565 (Me. 1986). “30 M.R.S.A. § 2317 (1978) states: § 2317.”
Barrera v. Town of Brownville, 139 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D. Me. 2001). “at 1005 (discussing 30 M.R.S.A. § 2317(1)(N), which- has since been repealed).”
Guimond v. City of Eastport, No. CUMbcd-cv-18-52 (Me. Super. Ct Apr. 12, 2019). “This rule makes sense, because as noted above, responding to media requests fits easily within 13 The Law Court has previously assumed, without discussion, that the predecessor statute to section 2636 (30 M.R.S.A. § 2317(1)(N) (1978), repealed by P.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 2317(G): 1 case
Butler v. Inhabitants of Town of Tremont, 412 A.2d 385 (Me. 1980). “In an opinion and order directing entry of judgment for the town, the Superior Court found that it was customary practice for the town to give successful bidders two weeks to secure satisfactory evidence of bondability and ruled that such a purchasing practice was permissible in…”
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.