Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 4, § 57 (2026)

Jurisdiction; disposition of cases; technical errors in pleading and procedure

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The following cases only come before the court as a court of law: Cases on appeal from the District Court, the Superior Court or a single Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court or from the probate courts; questions of law arising on reports of cases, including interlocutory orders or rulings of such importance as to require, in the opinion of the justice, review by the Law Court before any further proceedings in the action; agreed statement of facts; cases presenting a question of law; all questions arising in cases in which equitable relief is sought; motions to dissolve injunctions issued after notice and hearing or continued after a hearing; questions arising on habeas corpus, mandamus and certiorari and questions of state law certified by the federal courts. They must be marked "law" on the docket of the county or district where they are pending, and there continued until their determination is certified by the Clerk of the Law Court to the clerk of courts of the county and the court shall immediately after the decision of the question submitted to it make such order, direction, judgment or decree as is fit and proper for the disposal of the case, and cause a rescript in all civil actions, briefly stating the points therein decided, to be filed therein, which rescript must be certified by the Clerk of the Law Court to the clerk of courts of the county or district where the action is pending and to the Reporter of Decisions. If no further opinion is written out, the reporter shall publish in the next volume of reports thereafter issued the case, together with such rescript, if the reporter deems the same of sufficient importance for publication.   [PL 1999, c. 731, Pt. ZZZ, §2 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 731, Pt. ZZZ, §42 (AFF).]
When the issues of law presented in any case before the Law Court can be clearly understood, they must be decided, and a case may not be dismissed by the Law Court for technical errors in pleading alone or for want of proper procedure if the record of the case presents the merits of the controversy between the parties. Whenever, in the opinion of the Law Court, the ends of justice require, it may remand any case to the court below or to any justice or judge thereof for the correction of any errors in pleading or procedure. In remanding said case, the Law Court may set the time within which said correction must be made and said case reentered in the Law Court.   [PL 1999, c. 731, Pt. ZZZ, §2 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 731, Pt. ZZZ, §42 (AFF).]
When it appears to the Supreme Court of the United States, or to any court of appeals or district court of the United States, that there is involved in any proceeding before it one or more questions of law of this State, which may be determinative of the cause, and there are no clear controlling precedents in the decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court, such federal court may certify any such questions of law of this State to the Supreme Judicial Court for instructions concerning such questions of state law, which certificate the Supreme Judicial Court sitting as the Law Court may, by written opinion, answer.   [PL 1999, c. 731, Pt. ZZZ, §2 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 731, Pt. ZZZ, §42 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1965, c. 158, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1965, c. 356, §1 (AMD). PL 1965, c. 513, §2 (AMD). PL 1967, c. 544, §2 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 540, §2 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 731, §ZZZ2 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 731, §ZZZ42 (AFF).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 117 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1966–2024 · leading case: North River Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 2002 ME 146 (Me. 2002).
North River Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 2002 ME 146 (Me. 2002). · cites it 6× “Answering the Question [¶ 6] Before addressing the merits, we assess the appropriateness of answering the certified question pursuant to 4 M.R.S.A. § 57 (Supp.2001) and M.R.App. 25(a).”
State v. Ann Marie C., 407 A.2d 715 (Me. 1979). · cites it 8× “Kelly refused to find a State's right of appeal in the catch-all catalogue of 4 M.R.S.A. § 57 listing the branches of the Law Court's jurisdiction, including "cases on appeal" and "questions of law arising on reports of cases.”
Lorraine Scamman v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 2017 ME 41 (Me. 2017). · cites it 3× “[¶ 1] Pursuant to 4 M.R.S. § 57 (2016), the United States District Court for the District of Maine has certified to us the following question of state law: Is a claim for disparate impact age discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act, 5 M.”
Thomas Franchini v. Inv.'s Bus. Daily, Inc., 2022 ME 12 (Me. 2022). · cites it 7× “14, § 556 (Maine’s anti-SLAPP law)?” The First Circuit also “welcome[d] any further comments the Law Court may have on relevant Maine Law.” II. DISCUSSION [¶11] Before answering the question certified to us by the First Circuit, we must first decide whether to consider the…”
Michael Fortin v. Jacob Titcomb, 2013 ME 14 (Me. 2013). · cites it 6× “) has certified two questions of state law for our review: (1) “Where an insurance policy is available to cover a judgment against a government employee sued in his personal capacity, is the applicable limit on the award of damages set by [14 M.”
White v. Edgar, 320 A.2d 668 (Me. 1974). · cites it 8× “3 in *676 the situation in which a decision of a question of State law is necessary to a decision of the federal merits of a cause pending in the federal Court, it is, and will continue, a strong policy of this Court, as conducive to a sound federalism and the promotion of…”
Dasha Ex Rel. Dasha v. Maine Med. Ctr., 665 A.2d 993 (Me. 1995). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to 4 M.R.S.A. § 57 (1989) and M.R.Civ.P. 76B, [1] the United States District *994 Court for the District of Maine ( Carter, C.”
Michael Dinan v. Alpha Networks Inc., 2013 ME 22 (Me. 2013). · cites it 4× “) has certified a question to us pursuant to 4 M.R.S. § 57 (2012) and M.R.App. P. 25: “Does Maine’s Timely and Full Payment of Wages Law, 26 M.”
Phillips v. Johnson, 2003 ME 127 (Me. 2003). · cites it 2× “2(b)(3); 4 M.R.S.A. § 57 (Supp. 2002). [¶ 18] We have held that an appeal is cognizable, despite being directed to the wrong court, if the notice of appeal is otherwise valid and timely, immediate steps are taken to correct the error, and the steps taken to correct the error are…”
Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Verso Corp., 121 F. Supp. 3d 201 (D. Me. 2015). · cites it 3× “In closing, Plaintiffs ask the Court for three alternatives: (1) reconsider and reverse its prior Severance Order “based on an incomplete legislative record”; (2) certify the case to the Law Court pursuant to 4 M.R.S. § 57; or (3) certify the case to .”
Bar Harbor Banking & Trust Co. v. Alexander, 411 A.2d 74 (Me. 1980). · cites it 2× “The statute governing the jurisdiction of the Law Court is 4 M.R.S.A. § 57 which grants this Court jurisdiction to review, inter alia, “all questions arising in cases in which equitable relief is sought.”
Darney v. Dragon Prods. Co., LLC, 2010 ME 39 (Me. 2010). · cites it 3× “[¶ 1] As authorized by 4 M.R.S. § 57 (2009) and M.RApp. P. 25, the United States District Court for the District of Maine (Singal, J.”
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.