Notes of Decisions
Cited in
50
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2023 · leading case:
Fletcher v. Feeney, 400 A.2d 1084 (Me. 1979).
Fletcher v. Feeney, 400 A.2d 1084 (Me. 1979).
· cites it 4× “Specifically, 30 M.R.S.A. §§ 2411 and 4963 provide for an appeal from action (or inaction) of the Planning Board to the zoning board of appeals, and from that board directly to the Superi- or Court in a Rule 80B action, the Superior Court judgment being finally subject to this…”
Penobscot Area Hous. Dev. Corp. v. City of Brewer, 434 A.2d 14 (Me. 1981).
· cites it 3× “See 30 M.R.S.A. § 2411 (1978). The Board of Appeals held a hearing and later issued a statement, which set forth findings of fact and affirmed Wether-bee’s decision that the proposed use could not be classified as a single family use under the ordinance.”
Fitanides v. Perry, 537 A.2d 1139 (Me. 1988).
· cites it 5× “Fitanides filed a complaint in the Superior Court on September 5,1986, seeking review of the action of the Board under 30 M.R.S.A. § 2411(3)(F) (1978) and' M.R.”
Fisher v. Dame, 433 A.2d 366 (Me. 1981).
· cites it 3× “9(a) of the Eliot “Zoning” Ordinance pursuant to 30 M.R.S.A. § 2411, with jurisdiction to hear appeals from “any decision of the Planning Board or Code Enforcement Officer.”
Benjamin v. Houle, 431 A.2d 48 (Me. 1981).
· cites it 4× “§ 4961, the City of Auburn was free, under 30 M.R.S.A. § 2411, to withhold jurisdiction of its Board of Appeals over attempted appeals from the Planning Board’s decisions on excavation permits.”
Singal v. City of Bangor, 440 A.2d 1048 (Me. 1982).
· cites it 2× “30 M.R.S.A. § 2411(3)(F) provides that, in zoning cases, [a]n appeal may be taken, within 30 days after the decision [of the Board of Zoning Appeals] is rendered, by any party to Superior Court from any order, relief or denial in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil…”
Freeman v. Town of Southport, 568 A.2d 826 (Me. 1990).
· cites it 5× “30 M.R.S.A. § 2411 (Pamph.1988) authorized a municipality to establish a zoning board of appeals and allowed the municipality to vest the board with appellate authority.”
Allied Resources, Inc. v. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 999 A.2d 940 (Me. 2010).
· cites it 2× “2 (quoting 30 M.R.S.A. § 2411(3)(E) (1978)). By contrast, section 653(2) expressly requires the municipal officers to provide the applicant with a copy of the reasons for their decision, and in this case, the City’s written decision added detailed, statutorily mandated findings…”
Carroll v. Town of Rockport, 2003 ME 135 (Me. 2003).
“4 specifies a "30 days after the decision” limit, citing 30 M.R.S.A. § 2411 which was repealed by P.”
New England Herald Dev. Grp. v. Town of Falmouth, 521 A.2d 693 (Me. 1987).
· cites it 3× “The Defendants contend that because the administrative proceeding was brought by Foreside Associates, this Plaintiff lacked standing to seek review of the Board’s decision as it was not a “party” to the proceedings before the Board, as required by 30 M.R.S.A. § 2411(3)(F). 2…”
Cushing v. Smith, 457 A.2d 816 (Me. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, we conclude that the Bangor Zoning Board of Appeals’ policy of granting an administrative appeal whenever a party appeals to it seeking a variance comports with the ordinance and its enabling legislation (30 M.R.S.A. §§ 2411, 4963). When, as in the instant case, an…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 2411(1) — 2 cases
Benjamin v. Houle, 431 A.2d 48 (Me. 1981).
“§ 4961, the City of Auburn was free, under 30 M.R.S.A. § 2411, to withhold jurisdiction of its Board of Appeals over attempted appeals from the Planning Board’s decisions on excavation permits.”
Freeman v. Town of Southport, 568 A.2d 826 (Me. 1990).
“30 M.R.S.A. § 2411 (Pamph.1988) authorized a municipality to establish a zoning board of appeals and allowed the municipality to vest the board with appellate authority.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 2411(3) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 2411(3)(E) — 6 cases
Allied Resources, Inc. v. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 999 A.2d 940 (Me. 2010).
“2 (quoting 30 M.R.S.A. § 2411(3)(E) (1978)). By contrast, section 653(2) expressly requires the municipal officers to provide the applicant with a copy of the reasons for their decision, and in this case, the City’s written decision added detailed, statutorily mandated findings…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 2411(3)(F) — 31 cases
Fitanides v. Perry, 537 A.2d 1139 (Me. 1988).
“Fitanides filed a complaint in the Superior Court on September 5,1986, seeking review of the action of the Board under 30 M.R.S.A. § 2411(3)(F) (1978) and' M.R.”
Penobscot Area Hous. Dev. Corp. v. City of Brewer, 434 A.2d 14 (Me. 1981).
“See 30 M.R.S.A. § 2411 (1978). The Board of Appeals held a hearing and later issued a statement, which set forth findings of fact and affirmed Wether-bee’s decision that the proposed use could not be classified as a single family use under the ordinance.”
Singal v. City of Bangor, 440 A.2d 1048 (Me. 1982).
“30 M.R.S.A. § 2411(3)(F) provides that, in zoning cases, [a]n appeal may be taken, within 30 days after the decision [of the Board of Zoning Appeals] is rendered, by any party to Superior Court from any order, relief or denial in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil…”
Fisher v. Dame, 433 A.2d 366 (Me. 1981).
“9(a) of the Eliot “Zoning” Ordinance pursuant to 30 M.R.S.A. § 2411, with jurisdiction to hear appeals from “any decision of the Planning Board or Code Enforcement Officer.”
New England Herald Dev. Grp. v. Town of Falmouth, 521 A.2d 693 (Me. 1987).
“The Defendants contend that because the administrative proceeding was brought by Foreside Associates, this Plaintiff lacked standing to seek review of the Board’s decision as it was not a “party” to the proceedings before the Board, as required by 30 M.R.S.A. § 2411(3)(F). 2…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 2411(4) — 2 cases
Benjamin v. Houle, 431 A.2d 48 (Me. 1981).
“§ 4961, the City of Auburn was free, under 30 M.R.S.A. § 2411, to withhold jurisdiction of its Board of Appeals over attempted appeals from the Planning Board’s decisions on excavation permits.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 2411(G3)(F) — 1 case
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.