Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 35
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 35, § 102 (2026)

Unjust discrimination

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1979, c. 368 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 141, §A5 (RP).
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, 1978–1984 · leading case: Maine Water Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 482 A.2d 443 (Me. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maine Water Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 482 A.2d 443 (Me. 1984). · cites it 2× “The shifting of part of Wiscasset’s cost of service to the other four divisions was also invalid as an undue or unreasonable preference for Wiscasset and an undue or unreasonable prejudice to the other divisions.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 382 A.2d 302 (Me. 1978). “35 M.R.S.A. § 102; Gifford v. Central Maine Power Company, Me.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 405 A.2d 153 (Me. 1979). “The employee discount at issue here does not constitute ‘‘undue or unreasonable” discrimination, prohibited by 35 M.R.S.A. § 102. Ruling on a challenge to telephone service discounts provided clergy, newspapers, municipalities, and employees, the Arizona Corporation Commission…”
First Hartford Corp. v. Cent. Maine Power Co., 425 A.2d 174 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “§ 51 (1978) and amounted to an unjust practice prohibited by the provisions of what is now the first paragraph of 35 M.R.S.A. § 102 (Supp. 1980-81). 2 The complainants requested the Commission, after investigation and public hearing, to (1) declare the fuel adjustment clauses…”
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.