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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 99-A (2026)

Correction of clerical mistakes

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1977, c. 199 (NEW). PL 1981, c. 199, §6 (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, 1977–1982 · leading case: Theriault v. Walsh Constr. Co., 389 A.2d 317 (Me. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Theriault v. Walsh Constr. Co., 389 A.2d 317 (Me. 1978). “Similarly, the failure to make such an essential finding of fact cannot fairly be described as a clerical error within the meaning of 39 M.R.S.A. § 99-A. See Moore v. Langelier, Me.”
Fowler v. First Nat'l Stores, Inc., 416 A.2d 1258 (Me. 1980). “See 39 M.R.S.A. § 99-A; M.R.Civ.P. 60(a). 2 .”
Anania v. City of Portland, 394 A.2d 782 (Me. 1978). “” 39 M.R.S.A. § 99-A (Supp.1978-79). That limited provision manifests no basic change in policy.”
Hayford v. Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., 447 A.2d 480 (Me. 1982). “39 M.R.S.A. § 99-A (1978), repealed by P.”
Moore v. Langelier, 380 A.2d 199 (Me. 1977). · cites it 2× “Appellee contends that the appropriate relief in this case would be to treat the appeal as a request pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 99-A for leave of the court to return the matter to the Commission with a direction to correct the oversight in the order.”
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.