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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 474 (2026)

Permits; standards

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1975, c. 595, §3 (NEW). PL 1979, c. 504, §3 (RPR). PL 1983, c. 453, §5 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 649 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 809, §1 (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 2 cases, 1987–1989 · leading case: Hall v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 528 A.2d 453 (Me. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hall v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 528 A.2d 453 (Me. 1987). “The Halls failed, however, to obtain a “sand dune permit” from the BEP as re *455 quired by 38 M.R.S.A. § 474 (Pamph.1986). 3 After being notified of this requirement, the Halls applied for a permit from the BEP.”
C.H. Rich Co. v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 567 A.2d 69 (Me. 1989). · cites it 2× “We conclude that the Board of Environmental Protection applied the correct legal standard in deciding that replacement of a wharf currently supported by pilings with one supported by fill would unreasonably interfere with the natural flow of waters and would unreasonably harm…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 474(1) — 1 case
C.H. Rich Co. v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 567 A.2d 69 (Me. 1989). “We conclude that the Board of Environmental Protection applied the correct legal standard in deciding that replacement of a wharf currently supported by pilings with one supported by fill would unreasonably interfere with the natural flow of waters and would unreasonably harm…”
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.