Go Syfert

Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 1026 (2026)

Extension of herring weirs and wharves; shore owner's consent

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No fish weir, trap or wharf shall be extended, erected or maintained except in accordance with this chapter. No fish weir, trap or wharf shall be erected or maintained in tidewaters below low-water mark in front of the shore or flats of another without the owner's consent, under a penalty of $50 for each offense, to be recovered in a civil action by the owner of said shore or flats. This chapter applies to all herring weirs and traps, but does not apply to other weirs or traps, the materials of which are chiefly removed annually, provided such weirs or traps do not obstruct navigation nor interfere with the rights of others. This section shall not affect any wharves so erected or maintained on the 21st day of April, 1901.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2006–2011 · leading case: Britton v. Donnell, 2011 ME 16 (Me. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Britton v. Donnell, 2011 ME 16 (Me. 2011). · cites it 10× “In Britton I, we held that if a wharf extending in front of the tidal flats of adjacent property injures the adjacent landowners’ enjoyment of them riparian rights, the Wharves and Weirs Act, 38 M.R.S. § 1026 (2010), 1 affords them a remedy.”

Britton v. Dep't of Conservation, 2009 ME 60 (Me. 2009). · cites it 4× “[¶ 8] Because SILA and its unreasonable interference standard are not relevant to the private property dispute between the Brittons and the Donnells, we vacate and remand for a determination on the Brittons’ claims that Varrell Wharf constitutes a nuisance and violates the…”

Britton v. Maine Dep't of Conservation (Me. Super. Ct 2006). · cites it 5× “Donnell and Trustees of the Donnell Realty Trust's (Donnells) maintenance and use of wharfs, located on the York River, York Harbor Maine.”

Britton v. Maine Dep't of Conservation (Me. Super. Ct 2007). “" 38 M.R.S.A. § 1026 (2005). The remedy for a violation of this provision is a civil action to recover a $50 penalty per offense.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 1026(2008) — 1 case

Britton v. Maine Dep't of Conservation (Me. Super. Ct 2006). “Donnell and Trustees of the Donnell Realty Trust's (Donnells) maintenance and use of wharfs, located on the York River, York Harbor Maine.”

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.