Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11004 (2026)

Stay

✓ current as of May 2026

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

The filing of a petition for review shall not operate as a stay of the final agency action pending judicial review. Application for a stay of an agency decision shall ordinarily be made first to the agency, which may issue a stay upon a showing of irreparable injury to the petitioner, a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and no substantial harm to adverse parties or the general public. A motion for such relief may be made to the Superior Court, but the motion shall show that application to the agency for the relief sought is not practicable, or that application has been made to the agency and denied, with the reasons given by it for denial, or that the action of the agency did not afford the relief which the petitioner had requested. In addition, the motion shall show the reasons for the relief requested and the facts relied upon, which facts, if subject to dispute, shall be supported by affidavits. Reasonable notice of the motion shall be given to all parties to the agency proceeding. The court may condition relief under this rule upon the posting of a bond or other appropriate security, except that no bond or security shall be required of the State or any state agency or any official thereof. [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. Comm'n of Gevernmental Ethics & Elections Practices, 2015 ME 103 (Me. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. Comm'n of Gevernmental Ethics & Elections Practices, 2015 ME 103 (Me. 2015). · cites it 4× “[¶ 6] Following the Commission’s decision, NOM filed an application with the ' Commission for a stay pending appeal pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 11004 (2014). The Commission granted NOM’s, application in part, staying the requirement that NOM submit a campaign finance report until NOM…”

Globe Air, Inc. v. Thurston, 438 A.2d 884 (Me. 1981). · cites it 3× “Globe Air did not apply for a stay of the agency decision either to the Bureau or to the Superior Court as it could have pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11004. 2 Globe Air’s notice of appeal to the Law Court was filed on April 24, 1981; its motion for expedited appeal was denied on…”

Allied Resources, Inc. v. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 999 A.2d 940 (Me. 2010). “80C(b); 5 M.R.S. § 11004 (2009). The court (Goranites, J.”

Town of Charleston v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 68, 2002 ME 95 (Me. 2002). “The Town also requested a stay of the Commissioner’s decision, and therefore a stay of the referendum, until *1104 the appeal was decided pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11004 (2002). The Board informed the Town that it would not address the Town’s appeal or its request for a stay…”

David A. Jones v. Sec'y of State, 2020 ME 111 (Me. 2020). · cites it 3× “”1 Jones has filed an opposition to both motions, asserting that judgments entered by the Superior Court on petitions for judicial review of final agency action are not subject to the automatic stay pending appeal but rather are subject only to the stay provisions of 5 M.R.S. §…”

Vafiades v. Maine State Harness Racing Comm'n (Me. Super. Ct 2017). · cites it 3× “80C(b) and 5 M.R.S. § 11004. After careful consideration of the arguments advanced by the parties in their papers and orally before the Court on June 7, 2016, the motion is GRANTED.”

Breton v. Mayhew (Me. Super. Ct 2015). · cites it 5× “The Department further argues that the injunctive relief Petitioners seek is available through Rule SOC(b) and 5 M.R.S. § 11004. The Petitioners do not dispute that Counts I and III rely on the same factual allegations.”

Suzman v. Harvey (Me. Super. Ct 2008). · cites it 4× “On November 16, 2007, respondent issued a final decision finding the hours that should be provided petitioner under the Home & Community Based Benefits for the Physically Disabled program to be fifty- seven.”

Pozzi, LLC v. Maine Bureau of Alcoholic Beverages & Lottery Operations (Me. Super. Ct 2023). · cites it 2× “Petitioner now seeks a judicial stay of the Bureau’s decision issuing AGN-2023-15198 to Wells Clipper Mart pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 11004, The Court decides Petitioner’s motion on the ddministrative record, which was filed by the Bureau on July 14, 2023, and on the parties’…”

Penquis C.A.P. Inc. v. Maine Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2024). “And should Penquis's FOAA requests result in the disclosure of material information after the appeal hearing concludes, Rule 80C and the APA contain procedures that authorize the court to order the taking of additional evidence before the agency.”

Harpswell Coastal Academy v. M.S.A.D. 75 (Me. Super. Ct 2016). “See 5 M.R.S. § 11004. Emerson, 563 A.2d 762, 768 (Me.”

Goodhue v. Sec'y of State (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “(Transcript at 27). The stay of the license suspension was extended until May 20, 2017.”

Show all 19 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.