Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 38
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 348 (2026)

Judicial enforcement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  General.  In the event of a violation of any provision of the laws administered by the department or of any order, regulation, license, permit, approval, administrative consent agreement or decision of the board or commissioner or decree of the court, as the case may be, the Attorney General or the department may institute injunction proceedings to enjoin any further violation thereof, a civil or criminal action or any appropriate combination thereof without recourse to any other provision of law administered by the department.  
[PL 2011, c. 538, §7 (AMD).]
2.  Restoration.  The court may order restoration of any area affected by any action or inaction found to be in violation of any provision of law administered by the department or of any order, rule, regulation, license, permit, approval or decision of the board or commissioner or decree of the court, as the case may be, to its condition prior to the violation or as near thereto as may be possible. Where the court finds that the violation was wilful, the court shall order restoration under this subsection unless the restoration will:  
A. Result in a threat or hazard to public health or safety;   [PL 1983, c. 796, §17 (NEW).]
B. Result in substantial environmental damage; or   [PL 1983, c. 796, §17 (NEW).]
C. Result in a substantial injustice.   [PL 1983, c. 796, §17 (NEW).]
[PL 1989, c. 890, Pt. A, §40 (AFF); PL 1989, c. 890, Pt. B, §6 (AMD).]
3.  Injunction proceedings.  If the department finds that the discharge, emission or deposit of any materials into any waters, air or land of this State constitutes a substantial and immediate danger to the health, safety or general welfare of any person, persons or property, the department shall forthwith request the Attorney General to initiate immediate injunction proceedings to prevent such discharge or the commissioner may authorize pursuit of such an action in District Court. The injunction proceedings may be instituted without recourse to the issuance of an order, as provided for in section 347‑B.  
[PL 2007, c. 292, §14 (AMD).]
4.  Settlement.  A person who has resolved that person's liability to the State in an administrative or judicially approved settlement and is implementing or has fully implemented that settlement pursuant to its terms is not liable for claims by other potentially liable persons regarding response actions, response costs or damages, including without limitation natural resource damages, addressed in the settlement. The settlement does not discharge any other potentially liable persons unless its terms so provide. The protection afforded by this subsection includes protection against contribution claims and all other types of claims under state law that may be asserted against the settling party for recovery of response costs or damages incurred or paid by another potentially liable person, if those actions, costs or damages are addressed in the settlement, but does not include protection against claims based on contractual indemnification or other express contractual agreements to pay the costs or damages. A potentially liable person who commences an action against a person who is protected from suits under this subsection is liable to the person against whom the claim is brought for all reasonable costs of defending against the claim, including all reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees. This section is not intended to create a right to contribution or other cause of action or to make a person liable to pay a portion of another person's response costs, damages or civil penalties.  
[PL 1993, c. 732, Pt. A, §1 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 300, §9 (NEW). PL 1983, c. 796, §17 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 890, Pt. A, §40 (AFF). PL 1989, c. 890, Pt. B, §6 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 732, Pt. A, §1 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 292, §§13, 14 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 538, §7 (AMD).
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 8 cases, 1980–2016 · leading case: State v. Sirois, 478 A.2d 1117 (Me. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sirois, 478 A.2d 1117 (Me. 1984). · cites it 5× “Sirois to comply with the terms of the license, the State commenced the present action in July of 1983, seeking a declaration that he had violated the discharge license and also in-junctive relief pursuant to 38 M.R.S.A. § 348 (1978). 1 On October 4, 1983, a full hearing was…”
Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Emerson, 616 A.2d 1268 (Me. 1992). · cites it 2× “Defendant first contends that the civil action of the State brought pursuant to 38 M.R.S.A. § 348 (1989) 3 so resembles a criminal proceeding that he was entitled to a jury trial.”
State of Me. v. Dep't of Navy, 702 F. Supp. 322 (D. Me. 1988). “Additionally, the state seeks a penalty of "triple fees for those [annual and generator] fees which are more than 6 months overdue,” as authorized by 38 M.R.S.A. §§ 348 and 1319-1(6). Id. at ¶ 6.”
Rubin v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 577 A.2d 1189 (Me. 1990). · cites it 2× “Although the Board asserted its authority to seek the injunction under 38 M.R.S.A. § 348, the fact that the Attorney General is entitled under the common law to seek injunctive relief against violations also indicates that the 1983 amendment simply confirms the pre-existing…”
Bd. of Env't Prot. v. Bergeron, 410 A.2d 1037 (Me. 1980). “§§ 453 and 454 (in effect at the time of commencement of the action but transferred without material alteration to 38 M.R.S.A. §§ 348 and 349 by P.L.1977 c.”
State of Maine v. Dubois Livestock, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2016). “" 38 M.R.S. § 348(1). Where the Attorney General has such statutory authority to further public policy and to enjoin violations, the court need neither balance the equities nor find irreparable harm to grant the injunction.”
Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. State of Maine, Dep't of Envtl. Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2000). · cites it 2× “38 M.R.S.A. § 348(1). Nothing in the text of these provisions can be read to confer exclusive authority upon the Attorney General to remedy violations of the State’s environmental laws which may affect another party.”
State of Maine, Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. Inhabs. of the Town of Damariscotta, Maine (Me. Super. Ct 2001). “! The plaintiffs argue that it is entitled to the benefits of either 38 M.RS.A. § 348 or 30-A M.RS.A. § 4452 by arguing that it has brought the action both on the basis of the DEP-approved municipal ordinance and the State 1 There is a dispute as to whether plaintiffs’ exhibit…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 348(1) — 5 cases
Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Emerson, 616 A.2d 1268 (Me. 1992). “Defendant first contends that the civil action of the State brought pursuant to 38 M.R.S.A. § 348 (1989) 3 so resembles a criminal proceeding that he was entitled to a jury trial.”
State v. Sirois, 478 A.2d 1117 (Me. 1984). “Sirois to comply with the terms of the license, the State commenced the present action in July of 1983, seeking a declaration that he had violated the discharge license and also in-junctive relief pursuant to 38 M.R.S.A. § 348 (1978). 1 On October 4, 1983, a full hearing was…”
Rubin v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 577 A.2d 1189 (Me. 1990). “Although the Board asserted its authority to seek the injunction under 38 M.R.S.A. § 348, the fact that the Attorney General is entitled under the common law to seek injunctive relief against violations also indicates that the 1983 amendment simply confirms the pre-existing…”
State of Maine v. Dubois Livestock, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2016). “" 38 M.R.S. § 348(1). Where the Attorney General has such statutory authority to further public policy and to enjoin violations, the court need neither balance the equities nor find irreparable harm to grant the injunction.”
Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. State of Maine, Dep't of Envtl. Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2000). “38 M.R.S.A. § 348(1). Nothing in the text of these provisions can be read to confer exclusive authority upon the Attorney General to remedy violations of the State’s environmental laws which may affect another party.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 348(3) — 1 case
Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. State of Maine, Dep't of Envtl. Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2000). “38 M.R.S.A. § 348(1). Nothing in the text of these provisions can be read to confer exclusive authority upon the Attorney General to remedy violations of the State’s environmental laws which may affect another party.”
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.