Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 4
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 4, § 51 (2026)

Constitution of court; concurrence required

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When sitting as a Law Court to determine questions of law arising in any civil or criminal action or proceeding, the Supreme Judicial Court must be composed as provided by rules adopted by that court and shall hear and determine such questions by the concurrence of a majority of the justices sitting and qualified to act.   [PL 2007, c. 518, §1 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1969, c. 354 (RPR). PL 2007, c. 518, §1 (AMD).
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 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2024 · leading case: The Bank of New York Mellon v. Danielle Shone, 2020 ME 122 (Me. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Danielle Shone, 2020 ME 122 (Me. 2020). “§§ 1, 8, 9-A, 51. That authority is separate and mutually exclusive from the authority we exercise when sitting as the Law Court, an appellate body.”
King Resources Co. v. Env't Improvement Comm'n, 270 A.2d 863 (Me. 1970). “Appellate review by the Supreme Judicial Court at nisi prius would serve no useful purpose, as the appeal from any order of the Environmental Improvement Commission is strictly on the record with no grant of power in the Court to hear evidence anew or to receive further…”
Fredette v. State, 428 A.2d 395 (Me. 1981). “4 M.R.S.A. § 51 provides: “When sitting as a law court to determine questions of law arising in civil actions and in criminal trials and proceedings, the Supreme Judicial Court shall be composed as provided by rules promulgated by that court and shall hear and determine such…”
United States v. Moran-Stenson, 115 F.4th 11 (1st Cir. 2024). “" See Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 4, §§ 51 , 57; Mundell v.”
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.