Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 31
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 31, § 702 (2026)

Dissolution pursuant to court order

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1993, c. 718, §A1 (NEW). PL 2009, c. 629, Pt. A, §1 (RP). PL 2009, c. 629, Pt. A, §3 (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 (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2023 · leading case: Hl 1, LLC v. Riverwalk, LLC, 2011 ME 29 (Me. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hl 1, LLC v. Riverwalk, LLC, 2011 ME 29 (Me. 2011). · cites it 3× “Forsley, Shipyard Brewing, and HL 1 later amended their complaint to also seek (4) damages for default of the Garage Note; (5) judicial dissolution of Ocean Gateway Garage pursuant to 31 M.R.S. § 702(2) (2010); and (6) appointment of a liquidating trustee, pursuant to 31 M.”
Ahern v. Ahern, 938 A.2d 35 (Me. 2008). · cites it 2× “31 M.R.S. § 702 (2006). A member seeking dissolution must initiate an action that alleges one or more of the specific bases recognized by the Act for a dissolution pursuant to court order, such as that management is deadlocked, managers have committed fraud or other misconduct,…”
Candy A. (Bridges) Littell v. Cole G. Bridges, 2023 ME 29 (Me. 2023). “5 Title 31 M.R.S. § 702 (2006), the iteration of the Maine Limited Liability Company Act cited in Ahern v.”
The Witham Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. D.B.L. Enter., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2019). “• CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing it is hereby Ordered: That Defendants DBL and Linda Shelton's motion to dismiss Count II of the Complaint is Granted. 1 This plain language interpretation of the slatule ls reinforced by 1he legislative history.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 31, § 702(1) — 1 case
Ahern v. Ahern, 938 A.2d 35 (Me. 2008). “31 M.R.S. § 702 (2006). A member seeking dissolution must initiate an action that alleges one or more of the specific bases recognized by the Act for a dissolution pursuant to court order, such as that management is deadlocked, managers have committed fraud or other misconduct,…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 31, § 702(2) — 1 case
Hl 1, LLC v. Riverwalk, LLC, 2011 ME 29 (Me. 2011). “Forsley, Shipyard Brewing, and HL 1 later amended their complaint to also seek (4) damages for default of the Garage Note; (5) judicial dissolution of Ocean Gateway Garage pursuant to 31 M.R.S. § 702(2) (2010); and (6) appointment of a liquidating trustee, pursuant to 31 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 31, § 702(l)(C) — 1 case
The Witham Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. D.B.L. Enter., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2019). “• CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing it is hereby Ordered: That Defendants DBL and Linda Shelton's motion to dismiss Count II of the Complaint is Granted. 1 This plain language interpretation of the slatule ls reinforced by 1he legislative history.”
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.