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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 110 (2026)

Witness and attorney's fees allowable

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1965, c. 408, §11 (NEW). PL 1965, c. 489, §9 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 132, §2 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 479, §30 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 372, §A43 (RPR). PL 1985, c. 431, §2 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 615, §D22 (AMD). 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 19 cases, 1971–2004 · leading case: Rowe v. Chapman Trucking, 629 A.2d 1224 (Me. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rowe v. Chapman Trucking, 629 A.2d 1224 (Me. 1993). · cites it 7× “" 39 M.R.S.A. § 110 (1989). By failing to define the meaning of the term "prevail" as it relates to the time lag between the offer and the petition decision, the Legislature has left it open to interpretation.”
Ayotte v. United Servs., Inc., 567 A.2d 430 (Me. 1989). · cites it 4× “39 M.R.S.A. § 110(2) Contrary to the assertions of both Dunleavy and amicus A.”
Marsella v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 585 A.2d 802 (Me. 1991). · cites it 4× “" 39 M.R.S.A. § 110(2) (1989). An "informal conference under section 94-B," in turn, is an informal conference that is held no later than three weeks from the date of filing of the Notice of Controversy as required by section 94-B: "Upon filing of a notice of controversy,.”
Meadows v. Lewis, 307 S.E.2d 625 (W. Va. 1983). “34 (3) (1981); Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 39, § 110 (Supp.1982); Minn.”
Johnson v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 551 A.2d 838 (Me. 1988). · cites it 4× “Commercial Union made its last payment for those services as required by 39 M.R.S.A. § 110 (1978) 1 in December 1973.”
King v. Bangor Fed. Credit Union, 568 A.2d 507 (Me. 1989). “See 39 M.R.S.A. § 110; 5 M.R. S.A. § 4614. 4 .”
Gordon v. Maine Reduction Co., Inc., 358 A.2d 544 (Me. 1976). “The appellant is joined by the Maine Trial Lawyer’s Association (which filed an amicus curiae brief) in a similar inquiry as to the exclusiveness of fees allowed by the Commission under 39 M.R.S.A. § 110: “When the commission or commissioner finds that an employee has instituted…”
Collora v. Leahy (In Re Leahy), 170 B.R. 10 (Bankr. D. Me. 1994). “The statute under which the state commission entered its fees award, 39 M.R.S.A. § 110(2) (repealed by 39-A M.”
DeRice v. S.D. Warren Co., 1997 ME 84 (Me. 1997). · cites it 2× “The parties agree that the employees’ entitlement to attorney’s fees is governed by former 39 M.R.S.A § 110, that provides, in pertinent part: The employer may not be assessed costs of an attorney’s fee attributable to services rendered prior to one week after the informal…”
Overlock v. E. Fine Paper, Inc., 371 A.2d 121 (Me. 1977). · cites it 3× “Petitioner asked that under authority purportedly conferred by 39 M.R.S.A. § 110 2 the Commission award him the balance of his reasonable appeal expenses not covered by the order of this Court.”
Lucas v. E.A. Buschmann, Inc., 656 A.2d 1193 (Me. 1995). “” 39 M.R.S.A. § 110 (1989). These provisions reflect a legislative understanding that “compensation” refers to benefits that “compensate” employees for their injuries, while attorney fees are “costs” of litigation to be borne by the parties according to separate provisions of…”
Kinney v. Great N. Paper, Inc., 679 A.2d 517 (Me. 1996). · cites it 2× “Former 39 M.R.S.A. § 110(2) does not by its express language authorize an award of fees; it authorizes an assessment of fees.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 110(1) — 1 case
Rowe v. Chapman Trucking, 629 A.2d 1224 (Me. 1993). “" 39 M.R.S.A. § 110 (1989). By failing to define the meaning of the term "prevail" as it relates to the time lag between the offer and the petition decision, the Legislature has left it open to interpretation.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 110(2) — 9 cases
Ayotte v. United Servs., Inc., 567 A.2d 430 (Me. 1989). “39 M.R.S.A. § 110(2) Contrary to the assertions of both Dunleavy and amicus A.”
Marsella v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 585 A.2d 802 (Me. 1991). “" 39 M.R.S.A. § 110(2) (1989). An "informal conference under section 94-B," in turn, is an informal conference that is held no later than three weeks from the date of filing of the Notice of Controversy as required by section 94-B: "Upon filing of a notice of controversy,.”
Rowe v. Chapman Trucking, 629 A.2d 1224 (Me. 1993). “" 39 M.R.S.A. § 110 (1989). By failing to define the meaning of the term "prevail" as it relates to the time lag between the offer and the petition decision, the Legislature has left it open to interpretation.”
Collora v. Leahy (In Re Leahy), 170 B.R. 10 (Bankr. D. Me. 1994). “The statute under which the state commission entered its fees award, 39 M.R.S.A. § 110(2) (repealed by 39-A M.”
Kinney v. Great N. Paper, Inc., 679 A.2d 517 (Me. 1996). “Former 39 M.R.S.A. § 110(2) does not by its express language authorize an award of fees; it authorizes an assessment of fees.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 110(2)(A) — 2 cases
Rowe v. Chapman Trucking, 629 A.2d 1224 (Me. 1993). “" 39 M.R.S.A. § 110 (1989). By failing to define the meaning of the term "prevail" as it relates to the time lag between the offer and the petition decision, the Legislature has left it open to interpretation.”
Webster v. Bath Iron Works, 718 A.2d 574 (Me. 1998).
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.