Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007 (2026)

Manner and scope of review

✓ current as of May 2026

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

1. Schedule. The court, upon request or its own motion, shall set a schedule for the filing of briefs by the parties and for oral argument.

[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

2. Review by court. Except where otherwise provided by statute or constitutional right, review shall be conducted by the court without a jury.

[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

3. Judgment. The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact, except that, with respect to a timely appeal by an individual of a denial of a disability determination by a hearing officer pursuant to sections 17106‑A and 17106‑B, the court shall review the matter de novo.

[PL 2021, c. 277, §10 (AMD); PL 2021, c. 277, §45 (AFF).]

4. Decision. The court may:

A. Affirm the decision of the agency; [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

B. Remand the case for further proceedings, findings of fact or conclusions of law or direct the agency to hold such proceedings or take such action as the court deems necessary; or [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

C. Reverse or modify the decision if the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:

(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Affected by bias or error of law;

(5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW). PL 2021, c. 277, §10 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 277, §45 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 296 cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Lindemann v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 2008 ME 187 (Me. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lindemann v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 2008 ME 187 (Me. 2008). · cites it 4× “He also argues that pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 11007(1) (2007), he was entitled to oral argument on his petition.”

Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2010 ME 18 (Me. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3) (2009). [¶ 13] Upon review of an agency’s findings of fact we must examine “the entire record to determine whether, on the basis of all the testimony and exhibits before it, the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did.”

Kroeger v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2005 ME 50 (Me. 2005). · cites it 2× “5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C) (2002). [¶ 8] Kroeger contends that the Department's findings are contrary to the record evidence and are arbitrary.”

Anderson v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 134 (Me. 2009). · cites it 2× “With that information considered as part of the record, as we held it could be in Kelley , the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the findings of the Board that Anderson had failed to meet her burden of proof to demonstrate that her incapacity was expected to be…”

Cobb v. Bd. of Counseling Professionals Licensure, 2006 ME 48 (Me. 2006). · cites it 2× “5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C) (2005). [¶ 11] Regarding the first issue raised in this appeal, which is the interpretation of section 13858, the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intention of the Legislature.”

Seven Islands Land Co. v. Maine Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 450 A.2d 475 (Me. 1982). · cites it 2× “Independently reviewing the action of LURC, we also find no reversible error in the restricted permit granted Seven Islands for timber harvesting in the Burpee Brook deer yard. I. Substantial Evidence Seven Islands contends that LURC's decision is not based upon substantial…”

Gulick v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 452 A.2d 1202 (Me. 1982). · cites it 2× “Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, supra at 479; 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(3) (1979). The Superior Court applied the correct standard in reviewing the Board’s sight distance findings in this case; and after a thorough review of the record made before the Board of Environmental…”

Jackson Advert. Corp. v. State Tax Assessor, 551 A.2d 1365 (Me. 1988). · cites it 4× “[2] 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C) (1979) states in pertinent part this Court may: .”

Paul A. Dyer v. Superintendent of Ins., 2013 ME 61 (Me. 2013). · cites it 2× “) pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 11007 (2012) and M.R. Civ. P. 80C that affirmed the decision of the Superintendent of Insurance revoking Dyer’s licenses and ordering him to pay civil penalties and restitution for violations of the Maine Insurance Code.”

Robert D. Rossignol v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 115 (Me. 2016). “¶¶ 27-28; 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3). As the party seeking to vacate the Board’s decision, Rossignol bears the burden of persuasion on appeal to demonstrate error below.”

S.D. Warren Co. v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2005 ME 27 (Me. 2005). “2d 1047, 1054 ; 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(3) (2002). The Board’s findings of fact must be upheld, unless Warren can show that those findings are clearly erroneous.”

Stephen Doane v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2021 ME 28 (Me. 2021). “80C and 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(A) (2021), a decision by the Department of Health and Human Services excluding him from participation in and reimbursement from Maine’s Medicaid program, MaineCare.”

Show all 296 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(1) — 4 cases

Lindemann v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 2008 ME 187 (Me. 2008). “He also argues that pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 11007(1) (2007), he was entitled to oral argument on his petition.”

Leadbetter Int'l Trucks, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 483 A.2d 1226 (Me. 1984).

Constr. Goscobec, Inc. v. Timmons (Me. Super. Ct 2008).

Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc. v. Superintendent of Ins. (Me. Super. Ct 2011).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(2) — 9 cases

Lindemann v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 2008 ME 187 (Me. 2008). “He also argues that pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 11007(1) (2007), he was entitled to oral argument on his petition.”

Donald J. Trump v. Sec'y of State, 2024 ME 5 (Me. 2024).

Mallinckrodt US v. Maine Dep't of Envtl. Prot.. (Me. Super. Ct 2012).

North Atl. Sec., LLC v. Maine Off. of Sec. (Me. Super. Ct 2012).

N. Atl. Sec. v. Maine Off. of Sec. (Me. Super. Ct 2012).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(3) — 88 cases

Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2010 ME 18 (Me. 2010). “” 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3) (2009). [¶ 13] Upon review of an agency’s findings of fact we must examine “the entire record to determine whether, on the basis of all the testimony and exhibits before it, the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did.”

Anderson v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 134 (Me. 2009). “With that information considered as part of the record, as we held it could be in Kelley , the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the findings of the Board that Anderson had failed to meet her burden of proof to demonstrate that her incapacity was expected to be…”

Robert D. Rossignol v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 115 (Me. 2016). “¶¶ 27-28; 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3). As the party seeking to vacate the Board’s decision, Rossignol bears the burden of persuasion on appeal to demonstrate error below.”

S.D. Warren Co. v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2005 ME 27 (Me. 2005). “2d 1047, 1054 ; 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(3) (2002). The Board’s findings of fact must be upheld, unless Warren can show that those findings are clearly erroneous.”

Gulick v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 452 A.2d 1202 (Me. 1982). “Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, supra at 479; 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(3) (1979). The Superior Court applied the correct standard in reviewing the Board’s sight distance findings in this case; and after a thorough review of the record made before the Board of Environmental…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4) — 30 cases

Hale v. Petit, 438 A.2d 226 (Me. 1981).

Antler's Inn & Restaurant, LLC v. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 60 A.3d 1248 (Me. 2012).

Sinclair Builders, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2013 ME 76 (Me. 2013).

Douglas Burr v. Dep't of Corr., 2020 ME 130 (Me. 2020).

Lovell v. One Bancorp, 690 F. Supp. 1090 (D. Me. 1988).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4)(A) — 9 cases

Stephen Doane v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2021 ME 28 (Me. 2021). “80C and 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(A) (2021), a decision by the Department of Health and Human Services excluding him from participation in and reimbursement from Maine’s Medicaid program, MaineCare.”

Thanks But No Tank v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2013 ME 114 (Me. 2013).

Delbert A. Reed v. Sec'y of State, 2020 ME 57 (Me. 2020).

Delbert A. Reed v. Sec'y of State, 2020 ME 57 (Me. 2020).

Machiavelli v. Maine Dep't of Corr. (Me. Super. Ct 2020).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4)(B) — 17 cases

Fleming v. Comm'r, Dep't of Corr., 2002 ME 74 (Me. 2002).

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

Me. Ass'n of Interdependent Neighborhoods v. Petit, 659 F. Supp. 1309 (D. Me. 1987).

Delbert A. Reed v. Sec'y of State, 2020 ME 57 (Me. 2020).

Maine Ass'n of Interdependent Neighborhoods v. Petit, 659 F. Supp. 1309 (D. Me. 1987).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4)(B)(1989) — 1 case

Maine Care Servs., Inc. v. Maine Dep't of Human Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2002).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4)(C) — 71 cases

Kroeger v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2005 ME 50 (Me. 2005). “5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C) (2002). [¶ 8] Kroeger contends that the Department's findings are contrary to the record evidence and are arbitrary.”

Cobb v. Bd. of Counseling Professionals Licensure, 2006 ME 48 (Me. 2006). “5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C) (2005). [¶ 11] Regarding the first issue raised in this appeal, which is the interpretation of section 13858, the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intention of the Legislature.”

Centamore v. Dep't of Human Servs., 664 A.2d 369 (Me. 1995).

Jackson Advert. Corp. v. State Tax Assessor, 551 A.2d 1365 (Me. 1988). “[2] 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C) (1979) states in pertinent part this Court may: .”

Hale-Rice v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 1997 ME 64 (Me. 1997).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4)(C)(1) — 7 cases

Christian Action Network v. Maine, 679 F. Supp. 2d 140 (D. Me. 2010).

Hammer v. Sec'y of State, 2010 ME 109 (Me. 2010).

Hans Utsch et al. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2024 ME 10 (Me. 2024).

Watts v. Maine Bd. of Envtl. Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2013).

Nass v. Maine Bd. of Licensure in Med. (D. Me. 2024).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4)(C)(2) — 4 cases

Russell Black v. Bureau of Parks & Lands, 2022 ME 58 (Me. 2022).

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

Metcalf v. State Tax Assessor (Me. Super. Ct 2012).

Maine Mun. Assoc. v. Maine Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2015).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4)(C)(3) — 5 cases

Kane v. Comm'r of Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 960 A.2d 1196 (Me. 2008).

Hopkins v. Dep't of Human Servs., 802 A.2d 999 (Me. 2002).

Maquoit Bay LLC v. Dep't of Marine Resources, 2022 ME 19 (Me. 2022).

Mallinckrodt US v. Maine Dep't of Envtl. Prot.. (Me. Super. Ct 2012).

Lowell v. Dunlap (Me. Super. Ct 2005).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4)(C)(4) — 10 cases

Jackson Advert. Corp. v. State Tax Assessor, 551 A.2d 1365 (Me. 1988). “[2] 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C) (1979) states in pertinent part this Court may: .”

Washburn & Doughty v. Pottle (Me. Super. Ct 2007).

Najemy v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2007).

Legge v. Sec'y of State (Me. Super. Ct 2007).

Green v. Sec'y of State (Me. Super. Ct 2008).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4)(C)(4)(5) — 1 case

Connolly v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n (Me. Super. Ct 2004).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4)(C)(5) — 44 cases

Seven Islands Land Co. v. Maine Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 450 A.2d 475 (Me. 1982). “Independently reviewing the action of LURC, we also find no reversible error in the restricted permit granted Seven Islands for timber harvesting in the Burpee Brook deer yard. I. Substantial Evidence Seven Islands contends that LURC's decision is not based upon substantial…”

Gulick v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 452 A.2d 1202 (Me. 1982). “Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, supra at 479; 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(3) (1979). The Superior Court applied the correct standard in reviewing the Board’s sight distance findings in this case; and after a thorough review of the record made before the Board of Environmental…”

Spear v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 505 A.2d 82 (Me. 1986).

Dodd v. Sec'y of State, 526 A.2d 583 (Me. 1987).

Dotter v. Maine Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 435 A.2d 1368 (Me. 1981).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4)(C)(6) — 4 cases

Lundrigan v. Maine Labor Relations Bd., 482 A.2d 834 (Me. 1984).

Help-U-Sell, Inc. v. Maine Real Est. Comm'n, 611 A.2d 981 (Me. 1992).

C.H. Rich Co. v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 567 A.2d 69 (Me. 1989).

North Atl. Sec., LLC v. Maine Off. of Sec. (Me. Super. Ct 2012).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4)(C)(l) — 8 cases

Hammer v. Sec'y of State, 2010 ME 109 (Me. 2010).

Mallinckrodt US v. Maine Dep't of Envtl. Prot.. (Me. Super. Ct 2012).

Buck v. Maine DHHS (Me. Super. Ct 2021).

Marquis v. Maine Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2022).

Cooper v. Maine Dep't of Env't Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2022).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4)(c) — 2 cases

Penobscot Nation v. Maine Harness Racing Comm'n (Me. Super. Ct 2004).

Peters v. Comm'r, Maine Dep't of Health & Human Servcs (Me. Super. Ct 2014).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4)(c)(5) — 1 case

Town of Warren Ambulance Serv. v. Dep't of Pub. Saf., Maine Emergency Med. Servs., 2007 ME 120 (Me. 2007).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4)(c)(l) — 1 case

MacKay v. Maine Dep't of Env't Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2021).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(4X0) — 1 case

Porter v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 609 A.2d 1146 (Me. 1992).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(8) — 2 cases

Anderson v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 134 (Me. 2009). “With that information considered as part of the record, as we held it could be in Kelley , the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the findings of the Board that Anderson had failed to meet her burden of proof to demonstrate that her incapacity was expected to be…”

Residential & Cmty. Support Servs., Inc. v. Maine Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2024).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(A) — 1 case

Machiavelli v. Maine Dep't of Corr. (Me. Super. Ct 2020).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(C) — 7 cases

Girouard v. Maine State Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2004).

Halsey v. Fedcap Rehab. Servs. Inc (D. Me. 2023).

Jones v. Sec'y of State (Me. Super. Ct 2020).

Steele v. Sec'y of State (Me. Super. Ct 2009).

Fam. Crisis Svs. Inc. v. Maine Dep't of Health & Human Svs. (Me. Super. Ct 2009).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(C)(1) — 2 cases

Fam. Crisis Svs. Inc. v. Maine Dep't of Health & Human Svs. (Me. Super. Ct 2009).

Courtois v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2012).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(C)(4) — 2 cases

Mallinckrodt US v. Maine Dep't of Envtl. Prot.. (Me. Super. Ct 2012).

Mallinckrodt US, LLC v. Maine Dep't of Env't Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2013).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(C)(6) — 1 case

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

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11007(C)(l) — 2 cases

Stein v. Maine Crim. Just. Academy Bd. of Trs. (Me. Super. Ct 2013).

Kimball v. Superintendent of Ins. & Maine Bureau of Ins. (Me. Super. Ct 2014).

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.