Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 4, § 8 (2026)

Power to prescribe general rules

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The Supreme Judicial Court has the power to prescribe, by general rules, for the Probate, District and Superior Courts of Maine, the forms of process, writs, pleadings and motions and the practice and procedure in civil actions at law. Said rules may neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant. They take effect on such date not less than 6 months after their promulgation as the Supreme Judicial Court may fix. After their promulgation the Supreme Judicial Court may repeal, amend, modify or add to them from time to time with or without a waiting period. After the effective date of said rules as promulgated or amended, all laws in conflict therewith are of no further force or effect. [PL 1999, c. 547, §2 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 547, §80 (AFF).]

The Supreme Judicial Court may at any time write the general rules prescribed by it for cases in equity and those in actions at law so as to secure one form of civil action and procedure for both. In such union of rules the right of trial by jury as at common law and declared by the Constitution of the United States and amendments thereto and by the Constitution of the State of Maine and amendments thereto shall be preserved to the parties inviolate. Such united rules shall not take effect until 6 months after their promulgation and thereafter all laws and rules in conflict therewith shall be of no further force or effect. [PL 1977, c. 694, §1 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1977, c. 694, §1 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 653 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 547, §B2 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 547, §B80 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases, 1972–2020 · leading case: State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 2× “213, § 3 (LexisNexis 1999) (authorizing lower courts to adopts rules, but subjecting rules to approval by Supreme Judicial Court).”

Arsenault v. Crossman, 1997 ME 92 (Me. 1997). · cites it 6× “1972); 4 M.R.S.A. § 8 (1989). [3] If in the course of a proceeding to which the Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable a procedural rule conflicts with a statute, the rule controls.”

Lindemann v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 2008 ME 187 (Me. 2008). “1984) (citing 4 M.R.S.A. § 8 (1979)) (“All laws in conflict [with promulgated procedural rules] shall be of no further force and effect.”

The Bank of New York Mellon v. Danielle Shone, 2020 ME 122 (Me. 2020). “[¶65] When promulgating or amending rules of court, the Court invokes and exercises authority in its capacity as the Supreme Judicial Court. See 4 M.R.S. §§ 1, 8, 9-A, 51.”

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Libby, 655 A.2d 880 (Me. 1995). · cites it 4× “We decide here that our statutory authority to prescribe rules, 4 M.R.S.A. § 8 (1989), the language of Rule 6(a), and the legislatively imposed rule of construction, 1 M.”

State v. Chase, 157 A.3d 1291 (Me. 2017). “Chase’s remaining contentions — that we lack authority to promulgate rules of court, that the court erred by denying his requests for findings and conclusions, that as a matter of law the statute does not mandate that he register his pickup truck, and that he was unable to…”

The Bank of Maine v. William M. Peterson, 2014 ME 155 (Me. 2014). · cites it 2× “93 improperly limits a defendant’s substantive right to mediation in violation of 4 M.R.S. § 8 (2014). We are not persuaded.”

Harris Baking Co. v. Mazzeo, 294 A.2d 445 (Me. 1972). “2d 310, 314 (1970) By the enabling provisions of 4 M.R.S.A. § 8 (originally P.L.1957, Chapter 159), conjoined with P.”

Bellegarde Custom Kitchens v. Leavitt, 295 A.2d 909 (Me. 1972). “4 M.R.S.A. § 8. As the Enabling Act gave the Court no authority to promulgate rules which would affect the substantive rights of parties, the “applicable statute[s]” which Rule 6(a) would control must be those concerned with procedural matters.”

Summit Realty, Inc. v. Gipe, 315 A.2d 428 (Me. 1974). “, which provides the ordinary procedure for review by the Superior Court of the action of an officer representing a governmental agency.”

State v. Leonard, 470 A.2d 1262 (Me. 1984). “See 4 M.R.S.A. § 8 (1979) (“all laws in conflict [with promulgated procedural rules] shall be of no further force or effect”).”

Mitchell v. Jud. Ethics Comm., 2000 ME 83 (Me. 2000). “See 4 M.R.S.A. § 8 (1989). Inherent in the powers of superintendence and rule promulgation are the powers to enforce and interpret the rules.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

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.