Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 5
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11006 (2026)

Power of court to correct or modify record

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Review.  Judicial review shall be confined to the record upon which the agency decision was based, except as otherwise provided by this section.  
A. In the case of the failure or refusal of an agency to act or of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency which are not adequately revealed in the record, evidence thereon may be taken and determination made by the reviewing court.   [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
B. The reviewing court may order the taking of additional evidence before the agency if it finds that additional evidence, including evidence concerning alleged unconstitutional takings of property, is necessary to deciding the petition for review; or if application is made to the reviewing court for leave to present additional evidence, and it is shown that the additional evidence is material to the issues presented in the review, and could not have been presented or was erroneously disallowed in proceedings before the agency. After taking the additional evidence, the agency may modify its findings and decisions, and shall file with the court, to become part of the record for review, the additional evidence and any new findings or decision.   [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
C. If a required hearing was not held before the review proceedings were initiated, the reviewing court shall remand to the agency for a hearing in accordance with subchapter IV.   [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
D. In cases where an adjudicatory proceeding prior to final agency action was not required, and where effective judicial review is precluded by the absence of a reviewable administrative record, the court may either remand for such proceedings as are needed to prepare such a record or conduct a hearing de novo.   [PL 1985, c. 680, §9 (RPR).]
[PL 1985, c. 680, §9 (AMD).]
2.  Corrections to record.  The reviewing court may require or permit subsequent corrections to the record.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW). PL 1985, c. 680, §9 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Forest Ecology Network v. Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 2012 ME 36 (Me. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Forest Ecology Network v. Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 2012 ME 36 (Me. 2012). · cites it 2× “A party who intends to request that the reviewing court take additional evidence or order the taking of additional evidence before an agency as provided by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1) shall file a motion to that effect within 10 days after the record of the proceedings is filed under…”
Carl L. Cutler Co. v. State Purchasing Agent, 472 A.2d 913 (Me. 1984). · cites it 4× “On appeal to this court, Cutler contends it was entitled as a matter of law to a trial of the facts, and to conduct discovery, pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1) (1979) and M.R.Civ.”
Palesky v. Sec'y of State, 1998 ME 103 (Me. 1998). · cites it 3× “Although this commentary is directed at Rule 80B(d), when Rule 80C was promulgated, the advisory committee noted that Rule 80C(e) provided the procedure for taking additional evidence when appropriate under 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1) and that Rule 80C(e) is basically the equivalent…”
Sheink v. Maine Dep't of Manpower Affairs, 423 A.2d 519 (Me. 1980). · cites it 3× “The employee’s appeal to this Court raises three issues: (1) whether the record supports a finding that she was guilty of “misconduct” within the meaning of the statute; (2) whether the Superior Court wrongly denied her a de novo hearing, as allegedly her entitlement under 5…”
Hale-Rice v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 1997 ME 64 (Me. 1997). · cites it 2× “80C may file a motion requesting “that the reviewing court take additional evidence or order the taking of additional evidence before an agency as provided by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1).” M.R.Civ.P. 80C(e).”
Bradbury Mem'l Nursing Home v. Tall Pines Manor Assocs., 485 A.2d 634 (Me. 1984). · cites it 2× “5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1)(B) (1979). Bradbury Memorial asserts that the Superior Court should either have taken additional evidence in ruling on its appeal of the Department's decision or have ordered the Department to take such evidence.”
Spear v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 505 A.2d 82 (Me. 1986). · cites it 2× “Spear cross-appeals, urging that the Superior Court erred by refusing to reopen the administrative record pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1) (1979). Mrs. Spear was employed as an elementary school teacher by defendant S.”
Martin v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 723 A.2d 412 (Me. 1998). · cites it 2× “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1) (1989). In this matter, no motion to take additional facts was made.”
Smith v. Maine Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 456 A.2d 2 (Me. 1983). · cites it 3× “On September 10, 1981, he moved pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1)(B) to have the case remanded for the Commission to take additional evidence.”
Davric Maine Corp. v. Maine Harness Racing Comm'n, 1999 ME 99 (Me. 1999). “Plaintiffs further contend that even if the Commission did not err by faffing to tape record the meeting, the record was insufficient for judicial review and the court should have remanded the case to the Commission for further proceedings, pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1)(D)…”
York Hosp. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 2005 ME 41 (Me. 2005). “On January 7, 2004, the Collaborative filed a motion to modify or correct the record pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(2) and M.R. Civ. P. 80C(d), (e), and/or (f).”
Nemon v. Summit Floors, Inc., 520 A.2d 1310 (Me. 1987). “80C(d); 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006 (1979 & Supp.1986). An 80C case proceeds to final decision in the Superior Court on an automatic schedule of briefing and oral argument set out in the rule.”
Show all 65 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11006(1) — 30 cases
Palesky v. Sec'y of State, 1998 ME 103 (Me. 1998). “Although this commentary is directed at Rule 80B(d), when Rule 80C was promulgated, the advisory committee noted that Rule 80C(e) provided the procedure for taking additional evidence when appropriate under 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1) and that Rule 80C(e) is basically the equivalent…”
Forest Ecology Network v. Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 2012 ME 36 (Me. 2012). “A party who intends to request that the reviewing court take additional evidence or order the taking of additional evidence before an agency as provided by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1) shall file a motion to that effect within 10 days after the record of the proceedings is filed under…”
Carl L. Cutler Co. v. State Purchasing Agent, 472 A.2d 913 (Me. 1984). “On appeal to this court, Cutler contends it was entitled as a matter of law to a trial of the facts, and to conduct discovery, pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1) (1979) and M.R.Civ.”
Spear v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 505 A.2d 82 (Me. 1986). “Spear cross-appeals, urging that the Superior Court erred by refusing to reopen the administrative record pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1) (1979). Mrs. Spear was employed as an elementary school teacher by defendant S.”
Hale-Rice v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 1997 ME 64 (Me. 1997). “80C may file a motion requesting “that the reviewing court take additional evidence or order the taking of additional evidence before an agency as provided by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1).” M.R.Civ.P. 80C(e).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11006(1)(2011) — 1 case
Hartwell v. Town of Ogunquit (Me. Super. Ct 2012).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11006(1)(A) — 5 cases
Carl L. Cutler Co. v. State Purchasing Agent, 472 A.2d 913 (Me. 1984). “On appeal to this court, Cutler contends it was entitled as a matter of law to a trial of the facts, and to conduct discovery, pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1) (1979) and M.R.Civ.”
Martin v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 723 A.2d 412 (Me. 1998). “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1) (1989). In this matter, no motion to take additional facts was made.”
Reed v. Dunlap (Me. Super. Ct 2020).
Strong Green Energy v. Geneva Wood Fuels (Me. Super. Ct 2009).
Backer v. State of Maine Dep't of Marine Resources (Me. Super. Ct 2016).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11006(1)(A)(C)(D) — 1 case
Kain v. Sec'y of State (Me. Super. Ct 2005).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11006(1)(B) — 21 cases
Forest Ecology Network v. Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 2012 ME 36 (Me. 2012). “A party who intends to request that the reviewing court take additional evidence or order the taking of additional evidence before an agency as provided by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1) shall file a motion to that effect within 10 days after the record of the proceedings is filed under…”
Bradbury Mem'l Nursing Home v. Tall Pines Manor Assocs., 485 A.2d 634 (Me. 1984). “5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1)(B) (1979). Bradbury Memorial asserts that the Superior Court should either have taken additional evidence in ruling on its appeal of the Department's decision or have ordered the Department to take such evidence.”
Smith v. Maine Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 456 A.2d 2 (Me. 1983). “On September 10, 1981, he moved pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1)(B) to have the case remanded for the Commission to take additional evidence.”
Hale-Rice v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 1997 ME 64 (Me. 1997). “80C may file a motion requesting “that the reviewing court take additional evidence or order the taking of additional evidence before an agency as provided by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1).” M.R.Civ.P. 80C(e).”
Palesky v. Sec'y of State, 1998 ME 103 (Me. 1998). “Although this commentary is directed at Rule 80B(d), when Rule 80C was promulgated, the advisory committee noted that Rule 80C(e) provided the procedure for taking additional evidence when appropriate under 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1) and that Rule 80C(e) is basically the equivalent…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11006(1)(D) — 5 cases
Sheink v. Maine Dep't of Manpower Affairs, 423 A.2d 519 (Me. 1980). “The employee’s appeal to this Court raises three issues: (1) whether the record supports a finding that she was guilty of “misconduct” within the meaning of the statute; (2) whether the Superior Court wrongly denied her a de novo hearing, as allegedly her entitlement under 5…”
Davric Maine Corp. v. Maine Harness Racing Comm'n, 1999 ME 99 (Me. 1999). “Plaintiffs further contend that even if the Commission did not err by faffing to tape record the meeting, the record was insufficient for judicial review and the court should have remanded the case to the Commission for further proceedings, pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(1)(D)…”
Leadbetter Int'l Trucks, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 483 A.2d 1226 (Me. 1984).
Blue Sky West, LLC v. Maine Revenue Servs., 2019 ME 137 (Me. 2019).
Blue Sky West, LLC v. Maine Revenue Servs., 2019 ME 137 (Me. 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11006(2) — 5 cases
York Hosp. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 2005 ME 41 (Me. 2005). “On January 7, 2004, the Collaborative filed a motion to modify or correct the record pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11006(2) and M.R. Civ. P. 80C(d), (e), and/or (f).”
Backer v. State of Maine Dep't of Marine Resources (Me. Super. Ct 2016).
Black v. Cutko (Me. Super. Ct 2021).
Street v. State of Maine Bd. of Licensing of Auctioneers (Me. Super. Ct 2005).
Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. State of Maine, Dep't of Envtl. Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2000).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11006(l)(A) — 1 case
Strong Green Energy v. Geneva Wood Fuels (Me. Super. Ct 2009).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11006(l)(B) — 4 cases
Penquis C.A.P. Inc. v. Maine Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2024).
Black v. Cutko (Me. Super. Ct 2021).
Strong Green Energy v. Geneva Wood Fuels (Me. Super. Ct 2009).
FPL Energy Maine Hydro v. State of Maine, Bd. of Envtl. Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2009).
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.