Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11002 (2026)

Commencement of action

✓ current as of May 2026

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

1. Proceedings instituted. Proceedings for judicial review of final agency action or the failure or refusal of an agency to act shall be instituted by filing a petition for review in the Superior Court for the county where:

A. One or more of the petitioners reside or have their principal place of business; [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

B. The agency has its principal office; or [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

C. The activity or property which is the subject of the proceeding is located. [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

The court may grant a change of venue for good cause shown.

[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

2. Petition; contents. The petition for review shall specify the persons seeking review, the manner in which they are aggrieved and the final agency action or agency inaction which they wish reviewed. It shall also contain a concise statement as to the nature of the action or inaction to be reviewed, the grounds upon which relief is sought and a demand for relief, which may be in the alternative.

[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

3. Petition filed. The petition for review shall be filed within 30 days after receipt of notice if taken by a party to the proceeding of which review is sought. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review. If the review sought is from an agency's failure or refusal to act, the petition for review shall be filed within 6 months of the expiration of the time within which the action should reasonably have occurred.

[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 152 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Persson v. Dep't of Human Servs., 2001 ME 124 (Me. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Persson v. Dep't of Human Servs., 2001 ME 124 (Me. 2001). · cites it 10× “5 M.R.S.A. § 11002(3) (1989). Because we conclude that the appeal was timely, we vacate the judgment and remand.”

Charles M. Martin v. Dep't of Corr., 2018 ME 103 (Me. 2018). · cites it 9× “However, the clerk of court did not receive the petition until May 26, 2016. [¶ 3] After accepting service of the petition, the State moved to dismiss it for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”

Fournier v. Dep't of Corr., 2009 ME 112 (Me. 2009). · cites it 5× “See 5 M.R.S. § 11002 (2008); M.R. Civ. P. 80C.”

Mutty v. Dep't of Corr., 153 A.3d 775 (Me. 2017). · cites it 6× “” 5 M.R.S. § 11002(2) (2016). 4 [¶ 11] A petition that states a claim for relief and facially meets statutory requirements is, at least preliminarily, sufficient to establish jurisdiction.”

Peter Beckford v. Town of Clifton, 2014 ME 156 (Me. 2014). · cites it 4× “” 5 M.R.S. § 11002(3) (2014).7 This language raises considerable ambiguity as to whether the “notice” to trigger running of the appeal clock may be a vote of an agency, a mailing of a written notice, or some later receipt of a written notice of either the vote or a written…”

Davric Maine Corp. v. Bangor Historic Track, Inc., 2000 ME 102 (Me. 2000). · cites it 3× “…be filed within 30 days after receipt of notice if taken by a party to the proceeding of which review is sought. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11002.”

Gorham v. Androscoggin Cnty., 2011 ME 63 (Me. 2011). · cites it 2× “§ 9061 (2010) (requiring agency decision to be stated in the record or written, and to include “findings of fact sufficient to apprise the parties and any interested member of the public of the basis for the decision,” and requiring a copy of the decision to be delivered or…”

Brown v. State, Dep't of Manpower Affairs, 426 A.2d 880 (Me. 1981). · cites it 3× “5 M.R.S.A. § 11002(2). The final agency action specified by the petition in the case at bar was the letter and accompanying lease contract of November 15.”

Brent Leasing Co. v. State Tax Assessor, 2001 ME 90 (Me. 2001). · cites it 2× “Brent Leasing filed a timely petition for reconsideration pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 151 (Supp.2000). The Assessor upheld the assessment and added additional interest.”

Lovell v. One Bancorp, 614 A.2d 56 (Me. 1992). · cites it 4× “Defendants also contend, by way of affirmative defense, that the certificate of conversion issued by the Superintendent, and the expiration of the time limit for judicial review under 5 M.R.S.A. § 11002, separately or in combination, bar plaintiffs’ claims for relief based on…”

Lingley v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd., 2003 ME 32 (Me. 2003). · cites it 4× “1 5 M.R.S.A. § 11002(3) (2002). 2 The Board asserts that the Superior Court erred by granting Appellants an extension of time to file their notice of appeal based on a finding of excusable neglect.”

Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc. v. Superintendent of Ins., 2011 ME 48 (Me. 2011). · cites it 2× “80C and 5 M.R.S. § 11002 (2010), requesting that the Superintendent's decision be vacated and the case remanded for approval of a rate that would include a 3% profit margin.”

Show all 152 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11002(1) — 9 cases

Charles M. Martin v. Dep't of Corr., 2018 ME 103 (Me. 2018). “However, the clerk of court did not receive the petition until May 26, 2016. [¶ 3] After accepting service of the petition, the State moved to dismiss it for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”

Fournier v. Dep't of Corr., 2009 ME 112 (Me. 2009). “See 5 M.R.S. § 11002 (2008); M.R. Civ. P. 80C.”

John Doe v. Maine Bd. of Osteopathic Licensure, 2020 ME 134 (Me. 2020).

Joseph L. Richard v. Sec'y of State, 2018 ME 122 (Me. 2018).

Carl L. Cutler Co. v. State Purchasing Agent, 472 A.2d 913 (Me. 1984).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11002(1)(B) — 1 case

Boston & Maine Corp. v. State Tax Assessor (Me. Super. Ct 2004).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11002(2) — 6 cases

Mutty v. Dep't of Corr., 153 A.3d 775 (Me. 2017). “” 5 M.R.S. § 11002(2) (2016). 4 [¶ 11] A petition that states a claim for relief and facially meets statutory requirements is, at least preliminarily, sufficient to establish jurisdiction.”

Globe Air, Inc. v. Thurston, 438 A.2d 884 (Me. 1981).

Brown v. State, Dep't of Manpower Affairs, 426 A.2d 880 (Me. 1981). “5 M.R.S.A. § 11002(2). The final agency action specified by the petition in the case at bar was the letter and accompanying lease contract of November 15.”

Bureau of Taxation v. Town of Washburn, 490 A.2d 1182 (Me. 1985).

Daniel E. Mutty v. Dep't of Corr., 2017 ME 7 (Me. 2017).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11002(2)(3) — 1 case

Southridge Corp. v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 655 A.2d 345 (Me. 1995).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11002(3) — 72 cases

Persson v. Dep't of Human Servs., 2001 ME 124 (Me. 2001). “5 M.R.S.A. § 11002(3) (1989). Because we conclude that the appeal was timely, we vacate the judgment and remand.”

Charles M. Martin v. Dep't of Corr., 2018 ME 103 (Me. 2018). “However, the clerk of court did not receive the petition until May 26, 2016. [¶ 3] After accepting service of the petition, the State moved to dismiss it for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”

Peter Beckford v. Town of Clifton, 2014 ME 156 (Me. 2014). “” 5 M.R.S. § 11002(3) (2014).7 This language raises considerable ambiguity as to whether the “notice” to trigger running of the appeal clock may be a vote of an agency, a mailing of a written notice, or some later receipt of a written notice of either the vote or a written…”

Gorham v. Androscoggin Cnty., 2011 ME 63 (Me. 2011). “§ 9061 (2010) (requiring agency decision to be stated in the record or written, and to include “findings of fact sufficient to apprise the parties and any interested member of the public of the basis for the decision,” and requiring a copy of the decision to be delivered or…”

Lingley v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd., 2003 ME 32 (Me. 2003). “1 5 M.R.S.A. § 11002(3) (2002). 2 The Board asserts that the Superior Court erred by granting Appellants an extension of time to file their notice of appeal based on a finding of excusable neglect.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11002(B) — 1 case

Kevin J. Collins v. Dep't of Corr., 2015 ME 112 (Me. 2015).

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.