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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 103 (2026)

Appeal

✓ 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(REPEALED)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, §50 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 788, §235 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 59, §3 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 709, §6 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 132, §1 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 199, §7 (RPR). PL 1981, c. 514, §5 (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 31 cases, 1969–1995 · leading case: Moreau v. Zayre Corp., 408 A.2d 1289 (Me. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Moreau v. Zayre Corp., 408 A.2d 1289 (Me. 1979). · cites it 3× “In their motion to dismiss, the appellees contend that 39 M.R.S.A. § 103 required the appellant to file certified copies of all the papers that accompanied the motion for a pro forma decree and, therefore, that this appeal is not properly before the Court.”
Begin v. Jerry's Sunoco, Inc., 435 A.2d 1079 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “Under 39 M.R.S.A. § 103 an appeal from a pro forma decree is taken by filing a notice of appeal within 10 days of the entry of such decree.”
Wood v. Cives Constr. Corp., 438 A.2d 905 (Me. 1981). · cites it 3× “The employee argues that the Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable, because 39 M.R.S.A. § 103 in effect at the time provides that the Superior Court’s pro forma decree shall have the same effect and all proceedings in relation thereto shall thereafter be the same as though…”
Dunton v. E. Fine Paper Co., 423 A.2d 512 (Me. 1980). “This court’s jurisdiction to review Workers’ Compensation Commission orders, via appeals from pro forma Superior Court judgments, is conferred by 39 M.R.S.A. § 103. Section 103 provides, in part: [TJhere shall be no appeal [from the pro forma decree] upon questions of fact found…”
Mailman v. Colonial Acres Nursing Home, 420 A.2d 217 (Me. 1980). · cites it 2× “73(a), the Superior Court granted the appellants a thirty-day extension within which to file a notice of appeal because, through excusable neglect, their original notice was filed beyond the ten-day appeal period prescribed by 39 M.R.S.A. § 103. In Remick v. Erin, Inc.”
Young v. Sturdy Furniture Co., 441 A.2d 320 (Me. 1982). · cites it 2× “Under 39 M.R.S.A. § 103 (repealed by P.L. 1981, c.”
Wilcox v. Stauffer Chem. Corp., 423 A.2d 241 (Me. 1980). · cites it 3× “Neither can we ascertain such a determination from the Commissioner’s response to the employee’s motion for specific findings, pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 103. The Commissioner’s findings did not indicate whether or to what degree there had been a change either in the employee’s…”
Gordon v. Maine Reduction Co., Inc., 358 A.2d 544 (Me. 1976). · cites it 2× “Attorney’s Fees The appellant asks whether counsel for the employee who prosecutes or defends an appeal of a petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is entitled to collect from his client a fee in addition to that ordered by this Court under the provision of 39 M.R.S.A. §…”
Sevigny v. Home Builders Ass'n of Maine, Inc., 429 A.2d 197 (Me. 1981). “39 M.R.S.A. § 103 (Supp.1980) (any “party in interest” may appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Commission order).”
Wilner Wood Prods. Co. v. Moyse, 466 A.2d 1257 (Me. 1983). · cites it 2× “Under the prior statutory procedure, 39 M.R.S.A. § 103 (1978) (repealed by. P.”
Mathieu v. Bath Iron Works, 667 A.2d 862 (Me. 1995). “See 39 M.R.S.A § 103 (1978), repealed and replaced by P.”
McLellan v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 444 A.2d 427 (Me. 1982). · cites it 4× “39 M.R.S.A. § 103 (1978). A record adequate in Superior Court to obtain a pro forma decree under 39 M.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
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.