Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 556 (2026)

Municipal ordinances; powers limited

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Nothing in this subchapter may be construed to deny any municipality, by ordinance or by law, from exercising police powers under any general or special Act; provided that ordinances and bylaws in furtherance of the intent of this subchapter and promoting the general welfare, public health and public safety are valid unless in direct conflict with this subchapter or any rule or order of the board or commissioner adopted under authority of this subchapter. [PL 1989, c. 890, Pt. A, §40 (AFF); PL 1989, c. 890, Pt. B, §126 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1969, c. 572, §1 (NEW). PL 1971, c. 618, §12 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 541, §A270 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 890, §§A40,B126 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2016–2020 · leading case: Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland, 288 F. Supp. 3d 321 (D. Me. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland, 288 F. Supp. 3d 321 (D. Me. 2017). · cites it 3× “§ 4352 ; and (9) preemption of the Ordinance by Maine's *330 Oil Discharge Prevention Law, 38 M.R.S. § 556. Compl. for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (ECF No.”

Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of South Portland, 164 F. Supp. 3d 157 (D. Me. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 4352; and (9) preemption of the Ordinance by Maine’s Oil Discharge Prevention Law, 38 M.R.S. § 556. Compl. for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (ECF No.”

Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of South Portland, 2020 ME 125 (Me. 2020). · cites it 7× “” 2 complaint seeking a declaration that, inter alia, the Ordinance was preempted by 38 M.R.S. § 556 (2020), Portland Pipe Line Corp.”

Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of So. Portland, 947 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “Certification For the reasons set forth herein, we certify the following three questions to the Maine Law Court: (1) Is PPLC's license an "order," as that term is used in Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 556? (2) If PPLC's license is an order, is the City of South Portland's Clear…”

Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland, 332 F. Supp. 3d 264 (D. Me. 2018). “§ 4352 ; and (9) preemption of the Ordinance by Maine's Oil Discharge Prevention Law, 38 M.R.S. § 556. Id. On March 31, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on justiciability grounds.”

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.