Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 10003 (2026)

Right to Hearing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Opportunity for hearing.  Subject to the provisions of section 10004, an agency may not amend or modify any license unless it has afforded the licensee an opportunity for hearing in conformity with subchapter IV, nor may it refuse to renew any license unless it has afforded the licensee either an opportunity for an agency hearing in conformity with subchapter IV or an opportunity for a hearing in the District Court. In any such proceeding determined by the agency to involve a substantial public interest, an opportunity for public comment and participation must also be given by public notice in conformity with subchapter IV.  
[PL 1999, c. 547, Pt. B, §17 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 547, Pt. B, §80 (AFF).]
2.  Proceeding.  In any proceeding involving a proposed modification or amendment of a license which was the subject of an earlier hearing, the agency shall give notice thereof to all parties to the earlier proceeding and in any other manner required by section 9052, and may reopen the earlier proceeding for consideration of the proposed amendment or modification.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 694, §37 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 547, §B17 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 547, §B80 (AFF).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2000–2020 · leading case: Munjoy Sporting & Athletic Club v. Dow, 2000 ME 141 (Me. 2000).
Munjoy Sporting & Athletic Club v. Dow, 2000 ME 141 (Me. 2000). “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 10003(1) (1989). A hearing would also be required under the beano and games of chance statutes if we were to find that the denial of Munjoy’s applications were a revocation of existing licenses.”
Narowetz v. State of Maine Bd. of Dental Practice (Me. Super. Ct 2020). “Pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 10003, Dr. Narowetz requested a hearing to have the merits of the complaint decided by the Board.”
McCollum v. Maine Bd. of Counseling Prof'l Licensure (Me. Super. Ct 2009). “5 M.R.S. § 10003. The fact that the Board that screens Complaints is the same Board that oversees hearings does not mean that due process is violated.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 10003(1) — 1 case
Munjoy Sporting & Athletic Club v. Dow, 2000 ME 141 (Me. 2000). “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 10003(1) (1989). A hearing would also be required under the beano and games of chance statutes if we were to find that the denial of Munjoy’s applications were a revocation of existing licenses.”
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.