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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 1122 (2026)

Disability retirement

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1969, c. 415, §§7,8 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 482, §3 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 622, §14 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 122, §3 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 542, §10 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 788, §§20-21 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 622, §§54 TO 54-D (AMD). PL 1977, c. 450, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 564, §33 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 580, §§12,13 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 696, §40 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 222, §1 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 698, §7 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 722 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 801, §§2,7 (RP). PL 1987, c. 402, §A36 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1986–1994 · leading case: Carr v. Bd. of Trs. of Maine State Ret. Sys., 643 A.2d 372 (Me. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carr v. Bd. of Trs. of Maine State Ret. Sys., 643 A.2d 372 (Me. 1994). · cites it 6× “5 M.R.S.A. § 1122 (1964). Taking the statute as a whole, and with deference to the Board’s interpretation of its own statute, we find that the Board’s interpretation was reasonable.”
Dishon v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 569 A.2d 1216 (Me. 1990). · cites it 2× “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 1122(5-A) (1979). An injured worker who qualifies for ordinary state retirement benefits from the System instead of disability retirement benefits would suffer no such reduction.”
EEOC v. State of Me., 644 F. Supp. 223 (D. Me. 1986). · cites it 4× “III 1985), Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), asks that the provisions of 5 M.R.S.A. § 1122 be declared in violation of section 4(a) of the ADEA.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Maine, 644 F. Supp. 223 (D. Me. 1986). · cites it 4× “Ill 1985), Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), asks that the provisions of 5 M.R.S.A. § 1122 be declared in violation of section 4(a) of the ADEA.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 1122(1): 2 cases
EEOC v. State of Me., 644 F. Supp. 223 (D. Me. 1986). “III 1985), Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), asks that the provisions of 5 M.R.S.A. § 1122 be declared in violation of section 4(a) of the ADEA.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Maine, 644 F. Supp. 223 (D. Me. 1986). “Ill 1985), Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), asks that the provisions of 5 M.R.S.A. § 1122 be declared in violation of section 4(a) of the ADEA.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 1122(1)(A): 1 case
Carr v. Bd. of Trs. of Maine State Ret. Sys., 643 A.2d 372 (Me. 1994). “5 M.R.S.A. § 1122 (1964). Taking the statute as a whole, and with deference to the Board’s interpretation of its own statute, we find that the Board’s interpretation was reasonable.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 1122(2)(A): 1 case
Carr v. Bd. of Trs. of Maine State Ret. Sys., 643 A.2d 372 (Me. 1994). “5 M.R.S.A. § 1122 (1964). Taking the statute as a whole, and with deference to the Board’s interpretation of its own statute, we find that the Board’s interpretation was reasonable.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 1122(3): 1 case
Carr v. Bd. of Trs. of Maine State Ret. Sys., 643 A.2d 372 (Me. 1994). “5 M.R.S.A. § 1122 (1964). Taking the statute as a whole, and with deference to the Board’s interpretation of its own statute, we find that the Board’s interpretation was reasonable.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 1122(4): 1 case
Carr v. Bd. of Trs. of Maine State Ret. Sys., 643 A.2d 372 (Me. 1994). “5 M.R.S.A. § 1122 (1964). Taking the statute as a whole, and with deference to the Board’s interpretation of its own statute, we find that the Board’s interpretation was reasonable.”
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.