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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 562 (2026)

Definitions

✓ 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(REPEALED)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. 496, §A14 (NEW). PL 1987, c. 491, §5 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 735, §70 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 787, §13 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 312, §16 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 546, §10 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 865, §1 (RP). PL 1989, c. 890, §§A40,B130 (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 2 cases, 1990–1990 · leading case: Aviation Oil Co. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 584 A.2d 611 (Me. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Aviation Oil Co. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 584 A.2d 611 (Me. 1990). · cites it 6× “Aviation contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the Board’s finding that Aviation was a “responsible party” within the meaning of 38 M.R.S.A. § 562(10). The Board found that Aviation had custody or control of the oil at the time *614 of the discharge.”
Patrons Oxford Mut. Ins. v. Marois, 573 A.2d 16 (Me. 1990). · cites it 2× “The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a clean-up order directed to Lathe Fuel and the Maroises, finding them to be “responsible parties” under 38 M.R.S.A. § 562(10) (1989). 1 Both Lathe and the Maroises appealed.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 562(10): 2 cases
Patrons Oxford Mut. Ins. v. Marois, 573 A.2d 16 (Me. 1990). “The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a clean-up order directed to Lathe Fuel and the Maroises, finding them to be “responsible parties” under 38 M.R.S.A. § 562(10) (1989). 1 Both Lathe and the Maroises appealed.”
Aviation Oil Co. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 584 A.2d 611 (Me. 1990). “Aviation contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the Board’s finding that Aviation was a “responsible party” within the meaning of 38 M.R.S.A. § 562(10). The Board found that Aviation had custody or control of the oil at the time *614 of the discharge.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 562(10)(A): 1 case
Aviation Oil Co. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 584 A.2d 611 (Me. 1990). “Aviation contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the Board’s finding that Aviation was a “responsible party” within the meaning of 38 M.R.S.A. § 562(10). The Board found that Aviation had custody or control of the oil at the time *614 of the discharge.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 562(8): 1 case
Aviation Oil Co. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 584 A.2d 611 (Me. 1990). “Aviation contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the Board’s finding that Aviation was a “responsible party” within the meaning of 38 M.R.S.A. § 562(10). The Board found that Aviation had custody or control of the oil at the time *614 of the discharge.”
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.