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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4582 (2026)

Unlawful housing discrimination

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1971, c. 501, §1 (NEW). PL 1971, c. 622, §20 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 347, §9 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 705, §8 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 151, §1 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 355, §9 (RPR). PL 1975, c. 358, §12 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 770, §36 (RPR). PL 1983, c. 437, §§2,3 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 638, §1 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 730, §1 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 245, §4 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 99, §§13,14,16, 17 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 10, §14 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 613, §12 (RP). PL 2011, c. 613, §29 (AFF).
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 8 cases, 1979–2014 · leading case: Nicole Dussault v. RRE Coach Lantern Holdings, LLC, 2014 ME 8 (Me. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nicole Dussault v. RRE Coach Lantern Holdings, LLC, 2014 ME 8 (Me. 2014). · cites it 23× “Dussault claims that Coach Lantern’s policy of not including in its standard lease a tenancy addendum that binds the landlord to the requirements of the federal government’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of her status…”
Vance v. Speakman, 409 A.2d 1307 (Me. 1979). · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs alleged that their eviction would violate 5 M.R.S.A. § 4582 (1979) 1 in that defendants were taking the eviction action “solely because” plaintiffs Vance and Goodwin were welfare recipients.”
Robards v. Cotton Mill Assocs., 1998 ME 157 (Me. 1998). · cites it 10× “On appeal Cotton Mill contends that the court erred by finding that a clause in its housing application violated 5 M.R.S.A. § 4582 (Pamph.1997) and granting Robards a summary judgment.”
Robards v. Cotton Mill Assocs., 677 A.2d 540 (Me. 1996). · cites it 6× “) had previously granted a partial summary judgment in favor of Robards on the basis that Cotton Mill made illegal inquiries into the nature and extent of his disability and denied Cotton Mill’s motion for a summary judgment on its claim that section 4582 of the Maine Human…”
Union River Assocs. v. Budman, 2004 ME 48 (Me. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 3604 (b) (2000) (making it unlawful “[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or…”
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. City of South Portland, 508 A.2d 948 (Me. 1986). · cites it 2× “The Legislature and not the courts has the chief responsibility to identify when the design of a public transportation system amounts to unlawful public accommodation discrimination and to determine the scope of any necessary affirmative action.”
Catir v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Human Servs., 543 A.2d 356 (Me. 1988). “5 M.R.S.A. § 4582 (Pamph.1987) (emphasis supplied).”
Dussault v. RRE Coach Lantern Holdings (Me. Super. Ct 2011). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff Nicole Dussault cross-moves for summary judgment declaring that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against her in violation of the public assistance provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act, 5 M.R.S. § 4582. BACKGROUND I. Housing Choice Voucher Program - Section 8…”
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.