Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 39
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 102 (2026)

Agreement through mistake of fact or fraud

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1973, c. 537, §49 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 59, §3 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 709, §5 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 294, §1 (RPR). PL 1991, c. 885, §A7 (RP). PL 1991, c. 885, §§A9-11 (AFF).
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 13 cases, 1978–1998 · leading case: Merrill v. Eastland Woolen Mills, Inc., 430 A.2d 557 (Me. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Merrill v. Eastland Woolen Mills, Inc., 430 A.2d 557 (Me. 1981). · cites it 4× “The principal issue raised by the appellant is whether, under 39 M.R.S.A. § 102 (1978), as amended by P.”
St. Pierre v. St. Regis Paper Co., 386 A.2d 714 (Me. 1978). · cites it 2× “Pierre petitioned the Industrial Accident Commission, pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 102 (Supp.1973), to annul or amend an agreement for compensation he had entered into with his employer, St.”
Procise v. Elec. Mut. Liab. Ins., 494 A.2d 1375 (Me. 1985). “39 M.R.S.A. § 102 (1978) states, in pertinent part: Upon the petition of either party at any time the commission may annul any agreement which has been approved by the commission provided it finds that such agreement was entered into through mistake of fact by said petitioner or…”
Lavoie v. Gervais, 713 A.2d 335 (Me. 1998). · cites it 2× “, 39 M.R.S.A. § 102 (1978), 7 “The Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive procedure for review of any administrative decision in which the basic contention is that the plaintiff was wrongfully denied workers’ compensation benefits.”
Leo v. Am. Host & Derrick Co., 438 A.2d 917 (Me. 1981). “This limitation on the scope of petition for review of incapacity is not unjust in light of the possible remedy available to Leo under 39 M.R.S.A. § 102. That section permits an employee to petition the Commissioner to annul an agreement provided such an “agreement was entered…”
Cannon v. Folsom, 401 A.2d 997 (Me. 1979). · cites it 3× “” The Commission is empowered to annul compensation agreements by 39 M.R.S.A. § 102, which, at the time the agreements were signed, provided in part as follows: “Upon the petition of either party at any time the commission may annul any agreement which has been approved by the…”
Every v. Ne. Log Homes, Inc., 638 A.2d 709 (Me. 1994). “39 M.R.S.A. § 102 (petition for reopening for mistake of fact or fraud).”
Anania v. City of Portland, 394 A.2d 782 (Me. 1978). “39 M.R.S.A. § 102, enacted originally as P.”
Hazelton v. Roberge Roofing, 414 A.2d 900 (Me. 1980). · cites it 2× “1 No petition under 39 M.R.S.A. § 102 has ever been filed to set aside the agreement, nor did the Commission address the issue in its decision.”
Harrigan v. Maine Vets. Home, 704 A.2d 1215 (Me. 1997). “39 M.R.S.A. § 102(4)(D). The concurrent employment provision, subsection E, provides: When the employee is employed regularly in any week concurrently by 2 or more employers, for one of whom the employee works at one time and for another of whom the employee works at another…”
Brian v. State Dep't of Conservation, 556 A.2d 1089 (Me. 1989). · cites it 3× “The employer also argues that the commissioner abused his discretion in denying the employer’s petitions to reopen and to annul the memorandum of payment and acceptance of the employee’s claim filed by the employer.”
Smith v. Sambos Restaurants, 430 A.2d 1121 (Me. 1981). “39 M.R.S.A. § 102. Smith suggests that Cannon v.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 102(4)(D) — 1 case
Harrigan v. Maine Vets. Home, 704 A.2d 1215 (Me. 1997). “39 M.R.S.A. § 102(4)(D). The concurrent employment provision, subsection E, provides: When the employee is employed regularly in any week concurrently by 2 or more employers, for one of whom the employee works at one time and for another of whom the employee works at another…”
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.