Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11005 (2026)

Responsive pleading; filing of the record

✓ current as of May 2026

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

No responsive pleading need be filed unless required by order of the reviewing court. The agency shall file in the reviewing court within 30 days after the petition for review is filed, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow on motion, the original or a certified copy of the complete record of the proceedings under review. In the case of the alleged failure or refusal of an agency to act, the record must include written, electronic or otherwise memorialized communications, directives, orders and other documentation of all decisions by the agency to act, to refuse to act or to delay action. Within 20 days after the petition for review is filed, all parties to the agency proceeding who wish to participate in the review shall file a written appearance that states a position with respect to affirmance, vacation, reversal or modification of the decision under review. [PL 2019, c. 111, §1 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW). PL 2019, c. 111, §1 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases, 1981–2016 · leading case: Fleming v. Comm'r, Dep't of Corr., 2002 ME 74 (Me. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fleming v. Comm'r, Dep't of Corr., 2002 ME 74 (Me. 2002). · cites it 3× “§ 11002; (2) he sought injunctive relief and damages; (3) he served the four *695 named defendants only, but did not serve the DOC’ or the Attorney General; 6 and (4) he “did not ensure that a record was filed by the agency as required by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11005.” 7 We do not agree…”

Town of Ogunquit v. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 2001 ME 47 (Me. 2001). · cites it 2× “The Bureau is obligated to file with the court a copy of the record under review within thirty days after the petition is filed.”

Brown v. State, Dep't of Manpower Affairs, 426 A.2d 880 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “He accompanied this request with a written appearance pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11005, a motion to intervene and a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs petition for, among other reasons, untimely filing.”

Murphy v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 615 A.2d 255 (Me. 1992). “Murphy’s motion was made pursuant to Rule 80C(f) of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that: The agency shall file the complete record of the proceedings under review as provided by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11005. If the petitioner believes that the record filed by the agency…”

Leadbetter Int'l Trucks, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 483 A.2d 1226 (Me. 1984). “e court by letter dated July 21, 1981, that [sjince 36 MRSA § 151 provides that the reconsideration from which appeal is taken is not an “adjudicatory proceeding” within the meaning of that term in the Maine Administrative Procedure Act and that review of that reconsideration…”

The Cedars v. Maine DHHS (Me. Super. Ct 2016). · cites it 2× “The Administrative Record Under Rule 80C(f), "The agency shall file the complete record of the proceedings under review as provided by 5 M.R.S. § 11005." Under 5 M.R.S. § 11005, "The agency shall file in the reviewing court within 30 days after the petition for review is filed.”

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Maine Employers' Mut. Ins. Co. (Me. Super. Ct 2001). “(filed 6/9/00) 6/21/00 Entry of appearance and position pursuant to 5 MRSA section 11005 filed. s/LaCasse Esq s/Veilleux Esq 6/22/00 Letter informing the Court that the Supt of Insufance will not be filing an appearance, the record will be filed shortly filed.”

Geary v. State of Maine, Dep't of Behavioral & Dev. Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2002). “80C(f) and 5 M.R.S.A. § 11005. Geary argues that Spring Harbor’s decision is attributable to the State because the rule empowering the CEO of Spring Harbor to dismiss the grievance was promulgated by the same agency now named as respondent.”

Lingley v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2002). “9/24/01 Statement of Respondent, Maine Workers’ Compensation Board, Pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. §11005, filed. s/J. Rohde, Esq.”

Connolly v. State of Maine, Bd. Of Soc. Work Licensure (Me. Super. Ct 2003). “Exhibit A : attached, 7/11/02 Appearance and Statement of Position pursuant to 5 MRSA §11005 filed by Judith M Peters, AAG on behalf: off.”

Adams v. Maine Bd.of Soc. Worker Licensure (Me. Super. Ct 2004). “Unfortunately for the petitioner, the Law Court has spoken clearly on the effect of the statutory time limit set forth in 5 M.RS.A. § 11005, as follow: Judicial enlargement of a statutorily provided period of appeal is not possible .”

Street v. State of Maine Bd. of Licensing of Auctioneers (Me. Super. Ct 2005). “3/12/04 Appearance and Statement of Position: Pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11005 filed by Dennis E. Smith, AAG, on behalf of the Respondent.”

Show all 17 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.