Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11001 (2026)

Right to review

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Agency action.  Except where a statute provides for direct review or review of a pro forma judicial decree by the Supreme Judicial Court or where judicial review is specifically precluded or the issues therein limited by statute, any person who is aggrieved by final agency action shall be entitled to judicial review thereof in the Superior Court in the manner provided by this subchapter. Preliminary, procedural, intermediate or other nonfinal agency action shall be independently reviewable only if review of the final agency action would not provide an adequate remedy.  
[PL 1979, c. 127, §40 (AMD).]
2.  Failure or refusal of agency to act.  Any person aggrieved by the failure or refusal of an agency to act shall be entitled to judicial review thereof in the Superior Court. The relief available in the Superior Court shall include an order requiring the agency to make a decision within a time certain.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 616, §2 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 694, §40 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 127, §40 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 235 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Tomer v. Maine Human Rights Comm'n, 2008 ME 190 (Me. 2008).
Tomer v. Maine Human Rights Comm'n, 2008 ME 190 (Me. 2008). · cites it 6× “Except where a statute provides for direct review or review of a pro forma judicial decree by the Supreme Judicial Court or where judicial review is specifically precluded or the issues therein limited by statute, any person who is aggrieved by final agency action shall be…”
Lindemann v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 2008 ME 187 (Me. 2008). · cites it 6× “Section 11001(1) of MAPA sets forth the right to review agency action by providing: Except where a statute provides for direct review or review of a pro forma judicial decree by the Supreme Judicial Court or where judicial review is specifically precluded or the issues therein…”
Ne. Occupational Exch., Inc. v. Bureau of Rehab., 473 A.2d 406 (Me. 1984). · cites it 7× “The plaintiff, Northeast Occupational Exchange (NOE), 1 argues that the Superior Court erred in ruling that the defendant Bureau of Rehabilitation’s (Bureau) decision to cease referring clients to NOE did not constitute “final agency action” pursuant to the Maine Administrative…”
Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2003 ME 62 (Me. 2003). · cites it 3× “Johnson argues that CLF and the Gagnebins could have sought review of final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001 (2002), or review of agency rule-making under that same Act, id.”
Nelson v. Bayroot, LLC, 953 A.2d 378 (Me. 2008). · cites it 3× “§ 689 (2007), 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1) (2007), and MR. Civ. P.”
John Doe v. Maine Bd. of Osteopathic Licensure, 2020 ME 134 (Me. 2020). · cites it 4× “With respect to the Board’s second argument, one could view Doe as not “aggrieved” as required to advance an APA claim under 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1) (2020) because, as discussed infra, he has alleged no prejudice caused by the Board’s actions.”
Guar. Fund Mgmt. Servs. v. Workers' Comp. Bd., 678 A.2d 578 (Me. 1996). · cites it 5× “Imposition of a penalty under this section is deemed to be final agency action subject to appeal to the Superior Court, as provided in Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter VII [5 M.R.SA. § 11001, et seq.]. Notwithstanding Title 5, section 11004, execution of a penalty under this…”
Somerset Cnty. v. Dep't of Corr., 2016 ME 33 (Me. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 1803(9), 5 M.R.S. §§ 11001 and 11002 (2014), and M.”
E. Maine Med. Ctr. v. Maine Health Care Fin. Comm'n, 601 A.2d 99 (Me. 1992). · cites it 5× “The Superi- or Court is granted specific jurisdiction to hear petitions for review of failure or refusal of agency to act by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001 (1989). The statute provides: 2.”
Mallinckrodt LLC v. Littell, 616 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Me. 2009). · cites it 3× “§ 1365(4); 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001(1). A decision of the Superior Court may be appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.”
Ullis v. Inhabitants of Town of Boothbay Harbor, 459 A.2d 153 (Me. 1983). · cites it 3× “The plaintiff in the Superior Court was the Town of Boothbay Harbor, which sought review of a decision of the State Liquor Commission pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001(1) (Supp. 1982-1988) and ,M.”
Anderson v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Human Servs., 489 A.2d 1094 (Me. 1985). · cites it 2× “80C and 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001 (1979 & Supp.1984). The Superior Court affirmed the Department’s decision, from which the plaintiff appeals.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11001(1) — 75 cases
Tomer v. Maine Human Rights Comm'n, 2008 ME 190 (Me. 2008). “Except where a statute provides for direct review or review of a pro forma judicial decree by the Supreme Judicial Court or where judicial review is specifically precluded or the issues therein limited by statute, any person who is aggrieved by final agency action shall be…”
Ne. Occupational Exch., Inc. v. Bureau of Rehab., 473 A.2d 406 (Me. 1984). “The plaintiff, Northeast Occupational Exchange (NOE), 1 argues that the Superior Court erred in ruling that the defendant Bureau of Rehabilitation’s (Bureau) decision to cease referring clients to NOE did not constitute “final agency action” pursuant to the Maine Administrative…”
Lindemann v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 2008 ME 187 (Me. 2008). “Section 11001(1) of MAPA sets forth the right to review agency action by providing: Except where a statute provides for direct review or review of a pro forma judicial decree by the Supreme Judicial Court or where judicial review is specifically precluded or the issues therein…”
Nelson v. Bayroot, LLC, 953 A.2d 378 (Me. 2008). “§ 689 (2007), 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1) (2007), and MR. Civ. P.”
Guar. Fund Mgmt. Servs. v. Workers' Comp. Bd., 678 A.2d 578 (Me. 1996). “Imposition of a penalty under this section is deemed to be final agency action subject to appeal to the Superior Court, as provided in Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter VII [5 M.R.SA. § 11001, et seq.]. Notwithstanding Title 5, section 11004, execution of a penalty under this…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11001(1)(2004) — 1 case
Littlefield v. Walsh (Me. Super. Ct 2005).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11001(1)(2022) — 1 case
Thurlow v. City of South Portland (Me. Super. Ct 2022).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11001(2) — 25 cases
Lindemann v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 2008 ME 187 (Me. 2008). “Section 11001(1) of MAPA sets forth the right to review agency action by providing: Except where a statute provides for direct review or review of a pro forma judicial decree by the Supreme Judicial Court or where judicial review is specifically precluded or the issues therein…”
John Doe v. Maine Bd. of Osteopathic Licensure, 2020 ME 134 (Me. 2020). “With respect to the Board’s second argument, one could view Doe as not “aggrieved” as required to advance an APA claim under 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1) (2020) because, as discussed infra, he has alleged no prejudice caused by the Board’s actions.”
E. Maine Med. Ctr. v. Maine Health Care Fin. Comm'n, 601 A.2d 99 (Me. 1992). “The Superi- or Court is granted specific jurisdiction to hear petitions for review of failure or refusal of agency to act by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001 (1989). The statute provides: 2.”
Annable v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 507 A.2d 592 (Me. 1986).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11001(2)(2020) — 1 case
John Doe v. Maine Bd. of Osteopathic Licensure, 2020 ME 134 (Me. 2020). “With respect to the Board’s second argument, one could view Doe as not “aggrieved” as required to advance an APA claim under 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1) (2020) because, as discussed infra, he has alleged no prejudice caused by the Board’s actions.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11001(3) — 1 case
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.