Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 1092 (2026)

Employees of counties, cities and towns entitled to membership

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1965, c. 41 (AMD). PL 1965, c. 49 (AMD). PL 1965, c. 171, §1 (AMD). PL 1967, c. 81 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 208 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 271 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 154, §1 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 115 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 123 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 487 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 622, §§21-27 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 770, §22 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 580, §3 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 658, §1 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 700, §2 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 77 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 126 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 310 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 306 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 590, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 595, §1 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 54 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 480, §A4 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 19 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 104 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 801, §§2,7 (RP).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1983–2014 · leading case: Robinson v. Bd. of Trs. of the Maine State Ret. Sys., 523 A.2d 1376 (Me. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Robinson v. Bd. of Trs. of the Maine State Ret. Sys., 523 A.2d 1376 (Me. 1987). · cites it 6× “The board contends that the Superior Court erred when it interpreted 5 M.R.S.A. § 1092(11) and 1121(1)(C) (1979 and Supp.”

Soucy v. Bd. of Trs. of State Ret. Sys., 456 A.2d 1279 (Me. 1983). · cites it 2× “Prior to amendment in 1975, 5 M.R.S.A. § 1092(3) provided that retirement benefits for policemen and firemen under the Maine State Retirement System were to be calculated based upon “the annual rate of salary being paid such individuals at point of retirement or the gross amount…”

Kennebec Cnty. v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2014 ME 26 (Me. 2014). · cites it 3× “12 Title 5 M.R.S.A. § 1092(5-A) was repealed by P.”

Davey v. Lincoln Cnty., 505 A.2d 818 (Me. 1986). “64, § 17(1), now 5 M.R.S.A. § 1092(1) (1979). County employees who became members of the State Retirement System and on whose behalf contributions were paid by their counties of employment as required by R.”

Chase v. City of Portland, 658 A.2d 661 (Me. 1995). “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 1092(3) (codified as amended at 5 M.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 1092(1) — 1 case

Davey v. Lincoln Cnty., 505 A.2d 818 (Me. 1986). “64, § 17(1), now 5 M.R.S.A. § 1092(1) (1979). County employees who became members of the State Retirement System and on whose behalf contributions were paid by their counties of employment as required by R.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 1092(11) — 1 case

Robinson v. Bd. of Trs. of the Maine State Ret. Sys., 523 A.2d 1376 (Me. 1987). “The board contends that the Superior Court erred when it interpreted 5 M.R.S.A. § 1092(11) and 1121(1)(C) (1979 and Supp.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 1092(3) — 2 cases

Soucy v. Bd. of Trs. of State Ret. Sys., 456 A.2d 1279 (Me. 1983). “Prior to amendment in 1975, 5 M.R.S.A. § 1092(3) provided that retirement benefits for policemen and firemen under the Maine State Retirement System were to be calculated based upon “the annual rate of salary being paid such individuals at point of retirement or the gross amount…”

Chase v. City of Portland, 658 A.2d 661 (Me. 1995). “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 1092(3) (codified as amended at 5 M.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 1092(H) — 1 case

Robinson v. Bd. of Trs. of the Maine State Ret. Sys., 523 A.2d 1376 (Me. 1987). “The board contends that the Superior Court erred when it interpreted 5 M.R.S.A. § 1092(11) and 1121(1)(C) (1979 and Supp.”

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.