Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 39

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 104

Enforcement or modification of decree

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1973, c. 537, §51 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 59, §3 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 709, §7 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 698, §199 (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 5 cases, 1978–1995 · leading case: Bernard v. Cives Corp.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bernard v. Cives Corp. (1978) me “” (emphasis supplied) Further buttressing this conclusion is the provision in 39 M.R.S.A. § 104 (Supp.1978) authorizing modification of Superior Court pro forma decrees to conform to subsequent orders of the Commission “increasing, diminishing, terminating or commuting to a lump…”
Harding v. Sheridan D. Smith, Inc. (1994) me “39 M.R.S.A. § 104 — B(l) (1989), repealed and replaced by P.”
Wood v. Cives Construction Corp. (1981) me “The Superior Court’s only power of modification is that granted by 39 M.R.S.A. § 104: the court shall revoke or modify a pro forma decree to conform it to subsequent action of the Commission.”
LaRochelle v. Crest Shoe Co. (1995) me “The Commission, however, ruled that, pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 104 — A (1989), the insurers were not entitled to recover overpayments during the four-year pendency of their motions.”
Wilcox v. Stauffer Chemical Corp. (1980) me “3 The pro forma decree serves the dual purpose of giving enforceability to the Commission’s decision, 39 M.R.S.A. § 104, and providing the basis for appeal from the decision, 39 M.”
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.