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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 35, § 307 (2026)

Burden of proof

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1985, c. 481, §C16 (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 10 cases, 1978–1983 · leading case: Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 455 A.2d 34 (Me. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 455 A.2d 34 (Me. 1983). · cites it 2× “35 M.R.S.A. § 307 (1978). 1982 NET Case, 448 A.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Maine Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 395 A.2d 414 (Me. 1978). · cites it 2× “The pleadings in this case do not directly raise any issue concerning the relevance of the information sought by the Commission to the subject matter or purpose of its section 296 investigation.”
Mars Hill & Blaine Water Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 397 A.2d 570 (Me. 1979). · cites it 2× “See 35 M.R.S.A. § 307. Moreover, at the time of the proceedings before the Commission, there was no showing that the Commission had ever permitted the Water Companies to change to a normalization method of accounting.”
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 390 A.2d 8 (Me. 1978). “35 M.R.S.A. § 307; Central Maine Power Co.”
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 448 A.2d 272 (Me. 1982). “Our review is limited to determining in the light of the record whether the Commission’s conclusions are unreasonable, unjust or unlawful.”
Casco Bay Lines v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 390 A.2d 483 (Me. 1978). · cites it 2× “The Commission’s decision that the expenses in question were not reasonable expenses for ratemaking purposes is based primarily upon Casco’s failure to meet its burden of showing their reasonableness.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 382 A.2d 302 (Me. 1978). “” The Commission adheres to this view before us, arguing that (1) Central Maine failed to carry its burden of persuading the Commission that future attrition would occur, 35 M.R.S.A. § 307, and (2) there is substantial evidence to support the factual finding that such attrition…”
Maine Water Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 388 A.2d 493 (Me. 1978). “The staff, of course, is not required to introduce any direct evidence in a rate case proceeding for the burden of proof is upon the utility to demonstrate that its proposed rate increase is just and reasonable.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 414 A.2d 1217 (Me. 1980). “More specifically, we need not decide whether in the overall posture of this case, and for the purposes of applying the “burden of proof’ mandate of 35 M.R.S.A. § 307 either before the Commission or as to the Section 305 complaint before this Court, the “party adverse to the…”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 416 A.2d 1240 (Me. 1980). “35 M.R.S.A. § 307, Central Maine Power Company v.”
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.