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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings.   [PL 1977, c. 694, §29-B (AMD).]
1.  Adjudicatory proceeding.  "Adjudicatory proceeding" means any proceeding before an agency in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific persons are required by constitutional law or statute to be determined after an opportunity for hearing.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
1-A.  Adopt.  "Adopt" means action certified by the dated signature of an authorized representative that a rule is accepted as official by an agency.  
[PL 1993, c. 362, §1 (NEW).]
2.  Agency.  "Agency" means any body of State Government authorized by law to adopt rules, to issue licenses or to take final action in adjudicatory proceedings, including, but not limited to, every authority, board, bureau, commission, department or officer of the State Government so authorized; but the term does not include the Legislature, Governor, courts, University of Maine System, Maine Maritime Academy, community colleges, the Commissioner of Education for schools of the unorganized territory, school administrative units, community action agencies as defined in Title 22, section 5321, special purpose districts or municipalities, counties or other political subdivisions of the State.  
[PL 1995, c. 246, §1 (AMD); PL 2003, c. 20, Pt. OO, §2 (AMD); PL 2003, c. 20, Pt. OO, §4 (AFF).]
3.  Agency member.  "Agency member" means an individual appointed or elected to the agency who is charged by statute with that agency's decision-making functions. It does not include counsel to the agency or agency staff.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
3-A.  Effective date.  "Effective date" means the date a rule goes into effect. If a date is not assigned by the agency, the effective date is assigned by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 8052, subsection 6. Unless otherwise stated in law, emergency rules filed in accordance with section 8054 are effective at the time they are filed with the Secretary of State.  
[PL 1993, c. 362, §1 (NEW).]
3-B.  Authorized representative.  "Authorized representative" means the chair of a board or commission, an individual in a major policy-influencing position as defined by chapter 71, or the chief executive officer of an agency, within the agency adopting a rule.  
[PL 1995, c. 373, §2 (NEW).]
3-C.  Consensus-based rule development process.  "Consensus-based rule development process" means a collaborative process when a draft rule is developed by an agency and a representative group of participants with an interest in the subject of the rulemaking.  
[PL 1999, c. 307, §1 (NEW).]
4.  Final agency action.  "Final agency action" means a decision by an agency which affects the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific persons, which is dispositive of all issues, legal and factual, and for which no further recourse, appeal or review is provided within the agency.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
5.  License.  "License" includes the whole or any part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration, charter or similar form of permission required by law which represents an exercise of the state's regulatory or police powers.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
6.  Licensing.  "Licensing" means the administrative process resulting in the grant, denial, renewal, revocation, suspension or modification of a license.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
7.  Party.  "Party" means:  
A. The specific person whose legal rights, duties or privileges are being determined in the proceeding;   [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
B. Any person participating in the adjudicatory proceeding pursuant to section 9054, subsection 1 or 2; and   [PL 1977, c. 696, §47 (AMD).]
C. Any agency bringing a complaint to District Court under section 10051.   [PL 1999, c. 547, Pt. B, §16 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 547, Pt. B, §80 (AFF).]
[PL 1999, c. 547, Pt. B, §16 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 547, Pt. B, §80 (AFF).]
8.  Person.  "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, governmental entity, association or public or private organization of any character, other than the agency conducting the proceeding.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
8-A.  Proposed rule.  "Proposed rule" or "proposed agency rule" means a rule that an agency has formally proposed for adoption through submission of the rule to the Secretary of State for publication pursuant to section 8053, subsection 5.  
[PL 1997, c. 110, §1 (NEW).]
9.  Rule.  "Rule" is defined as follows.  
A. "Rule" means the whole or any part of every regulation, standard, code, statement of policy, or other agency guideline or statement of general applicability, including the amendment, suspension or repeal of any prior rule, that is or is intended to be judicially enforceable and implements, interprets or makes specific the law administered by the agency, or describes the procedures or practices of the agency.   [PL 2011, c. 304, Pt. G, §1 (AMD).]
B. The term does not include:  
(1) Policies or memoranda concerning only the internal management of an agency or the State Government and not judicially enforceable;  
(2) Advisory rulings issued under subchapter 3;  
(3) Decisions issued in adjudicatory proceedings; or  
(4) Any form, instruction or explanatory statement of policy that in itself is not judicially enforceable, and that is intended solely as advice to assist persons in determining, exercising or complying with their legal rights, duties or privileges.   [PL 2011, c. 304, Pt. G, §1 (AMD).]
A rule is not judicially enforceable unless it is adopted in a manner consistent with this chapter.  
[PL 2011, c. 304, Pt. G, §1 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 568, §1 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 661, §3 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 694, §§29-B TO 32 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 696, §47 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 696, §48 (RAL). PL 1979, c. 425, §3 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 464, §1 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 490, §1 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 779, §22 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 443, §13 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 574, §1 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 700, §A19 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 362, §1 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 246, §1 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 373, §2 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 110, §1 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 307, §1 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 547, §B16 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 547, §B80 (AFF). PL 2003, c. 20, §OO2 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 20, §OO4 (AFF). PL 2011, c. 304, Pt. G, §1 (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 92 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Stephen Doane v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2017 ME 193 (Me. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stephen Doane v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2017 ME 193 (Me. 2017). · cites it 13× “See 10 M.R.S. § 8003(5)(A-1)(2-A). To answer that question, we look to the meaning of the statutes in the context of the entire statutory scheme.”
Brown v. State, Dep't of Manpower Affairs, 426 A.2d 880 (Me. 1981). · cites it 9× “at § 1, is substantially similar to the Maine Act’s definition of “adjudicatory proceeding,” 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(1), as opposed to the Maine Act’s broader definition of “final agency action.”
Cobb v. Bd. of Counseling Professionals Licensure, 2006 ME 48 (Me. 2006). · cites it 4× “" 5 M.R.S. § 8002(9)(A) (2005). However, specifically excepted from this definition are "[d]ecisions issued in adjudicatory proceedings.”
Tomer v. Maine Human Rights Comm'n, 2008 ME 190 (Me. 2008). · cites it 4× “Final Agency Action [¶ 6] Tomer argues that the court erred in dismissing his Rule 80C appeal because the Commission’s dismissal of his employment discrimination complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction constitutes “final agency action” within the meaning of the APA, 5…”
New England Whitewater Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988). · cites it 4× “5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(9) (Pamph.1987). It is the contention of the Department and the intervenors that the Department made no changes in the rules, but rather, that the criteria used in making the allocations and disclosed during the allocation process were only “explanatory…”
Ne. Occupational Exch., Inc. v. Bureau of Rehab., 473 A.2d 406 (Me. 1984). · cites it 5× “” 9 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(4). 1. Agency action. Except where a statute provides for direct review or review of a pro forma judicial decree by the Supreme Judicial Court or where judicial review is specifically precluded or the issues therein limited by statute, any person who is…”
Forest Ecology Network v. Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 2012 ME 36 (Me. 2012). · cites it 2× “” 5 M.R.S. § 8002(1). Although the rulemak-ing process in this case was not initiated by LURC itself, the ensuing process, the standards employed, and the approved plan were all steeped in LURC’s statutory authority to engage in rulemaking.”
Cumberland Farms N., Inc. v. Maine Milk Comm'n, 428 A.2d 869 (Me. 1981). · cites it 5× “Although the definition of “adjudicatory proceeding” in 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(1) contains no reference to minimum price setting, Cumberland Farms notes that the Model State Administrative Procedure Act, which is the prototype for state legislation on the subject, expressly includes…”
Lingley v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd., 2003 ME 32 (Me. 2003). · cites it 3× “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(8-A) (2002). The Board followed the procedural requirements for rulemak-ing detailed in the APA, 5 M.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2014 ME 56 (Me. 2014). · cites it 2× “[¶ 27] The Maine Administrative Procedure Act defines a “rule” as a “regulation, standard, code, statement of policy, or other agency guideline or statement of general applicability ... that is or is intended to be judicially enforceable and implements, interprets or makes…”
Passadumkeag Mountain Friends v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2014 ME 116 (Me. 2014). “§ 9055 (2013) prohibits ex parte communications only in an “adjudicatory proceeding,” which is defined as “any proceeding before an agency in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific persons are required by constitutional law or statute to be determined after an…”
Cline v. Maine Coast Nordic, 1999 ME 72 (Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 9054 (1989) 3 or otherwise assert party status as defined in 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(7) (1989). 4 Because the Clines were not parties *688 to the action, they did not receive written or verbal notification of the September 29, 1993 Department decision until December 15, 1993, when…”
Show all 92 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(1) — 14 cases
Brown v. State, Dep't of Manpower Affairs, 426 A.2d 880 (Me. 1981). “at § 1, is substantially similar to the Maine Act’s definition of “adjudicatory proceeding,” 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(1), as opposed to the Maine Act’s broader definition of “final agency action.”
Passadumkeag Mountain Friends v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2014 ME 116 (Me. 2014). “§ 9055 (2013) prohibits ex parte communications only in an “adjudicatory proceeding,” which is defined as “any proceeding before an agency in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific persons are required by constitutional law or statute to be determined after an…”
Forest Ecology Network v. Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 2012 ME 36 (Me. 2012). “” 5 M.R.S. § 8002(1). Although the rulemak-ing process in this case was not initiated by LURC itself, the ensuing process, the standards employed, and the approved plan were all steeped in LURC’s statutory authority to engage in rulemaking.”
Cumberland Farms N., Inc. v. Maine Milk Comm'n, 428 A.2d 869 (Me. 1981). “Although the definition of “adjudicatory proceeding” in 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(1) contains no reference to minimum price setting, Cumberland Farms notes that the Model State Administrative Procedure Act, which is the prototype for state legislation on the subject, expressly includes…”
Davric Maine Corp. v. Maine Harness Racing Comm'n, 1999 ME 99 (Me. 1999).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(2) — 12 cases
Charles M. Martin v. Dep't of Corr., 2018 ME 103 (Me. 2018).
Sanford High. Unit of Local 481 v. Town of Sanford, 411 A.2d 1010 (Me. 1980).
Sherburne v. Med. Malpractice Prelitigation Screening Panel, 672 A.2d 596 (Me. 1996).
Richard Ouellette v. Saco River Corridor Comm'n, 2022 ME 42 (Me. 2022).
Maine State Employees Ass'n v. State Dev. Off., 499 A.2d 165 (Me. 1985).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(3) — 1 case
Baffer v. Dep't of Human Servs., 553 A.2d 659 (Me. 1989).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(4) — 27 cases
Tomer v. Maine Human Rights Comm'n, 2008 ME 190 (Me. 2008). “Final Agency Action [¶ 6] Tomer argues that the court erred in dismissing his Rule 80C appeal because the Commission’s dismissal of his employment discrimination complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction constitutes “final agency action” within the meaning of the APA, 5…”
Brown v. State, Dep't of Manpower Affairs, 426 A.2d 880 (Me. 1981). “at § 1, is substantially similar to the Maine Act’s definition of “adjudicatory proceeding,” 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(1), as opposed to the Maine Act’s broader definition of “final agency action.”
Ne. Occupational Exch., Inc. v. Bureau of Rehab., 473 A.2d 406 (Me. 1984). “” 9 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(4). 1. Agency action. Except where a statute provides for direct review or review of a pro forma judicial decree by the Supreme Judicial Court or where judicial review is specifically precluded or the issues therein limited by statute, any person who is…”
Lingley v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd., 2003 ME 32 (Me. 2003). “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(8-A) (2002). The Board followed the procedural requirements for rulemak-ing detailed in the APA, 5 M.”
Hale v. Petit, 438 A.2d 226 (Me. 1981).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(4)(2004) — 1 case
Littlefield v. Walsh (Me. Super. Ct 2005).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(5) — 2 cases
Stephen Doane v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2017 ME 193 (Me. 2017). “See 10 M.R.S. § 8003(5)(A-1)(2-A). To answer that question, we look to the meaning of the statutes in the context of the entire statutory scheme.”
Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of South Portland, 2020 ME 125 (Me. 2020).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(6) — 1 case
Doane v. Maine Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2016).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(7) — 6 cases
Cline v. Maine Coast Nordic, 1999 ME 72 (Me. 1999). “§ 9054 (1989) 3 or otherwise assert party status as defined in 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(7) (1989). 4 Because the Clines were not parties *688 to the action, they did not receive written or verbal notification of the September 29, 1993 Department decision until December 15, 1993, when…”
Lindemann v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 2008 ME 187 (Me. 2008).
Consumers for Affordable Health Care, Inc. v. Superintendent of Ins., 2002 ME 158 (Me. 2002).
Marina Narowetz v. Bd. of Dental Practice, 2021 ME 46 (Me. 2021).
Doane v. Maine Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2016).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(7)(A) — 2 cases
Brown v. State, Dep't of Manpower Affairs, 426 A.2d 880 (Me. 1981). “at § 1, is substantially similar to the Maine Act’s definition of “adjudicatory proceeding,” 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(1), as opposed to the Maine Act’s broader definition of “final agency action.”
Bureau of Taxation v. Town of Washburn, 490 A.2d 1182 (Me. 1985).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(7XA) — 1 case
Brown v. State, Dep't of Manpower Affairs, 426 A.2d 880 (Me. 1981). “at § 1, is substantially similar to the Maine Act’s definition of “adjudicatory proceeding,” 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(1), as opposed to the Maine Act’s broader definition of “final agency action.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(8) — 6 cases
Shaw v. Jendzejec, 1998 ME 208 (Me. 1998).
Consumers for Affordable Health Care, Inc. v. Superintendent of Ins., 2002 ME 158 (Me. 2002).
Ne. Occupational Exch., Inc. v. Bureau of Rehab., 473 A.2d 406 (Me. 1984). “” 9 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(4). 1. Agency action. Except where a statute provides for direct review or review of a pro forma judicial decree by the Supreme Judicial Court or where judicial review is specifically precluded or the issues therein limited by statute, any person who is…”
Bureau of Taxation v. Town of Washburn, 490 A.2d 1182 (Me. 1985).
Block v. Beal (Me. Super. Ct 2024).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(9) — 15 cases
New England Whitewater Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988). “5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(9) (Pamph.1987). It is the contention of the Department and the intervenors that the Department made no changes in the rules, but rather, that the criteria used in making the allocations and disclosed during the allocation process were only “explanatory…”
Cumberland Farms N., Inc. v. Maine Milk Comm'n, 428 A.2d 869 (Me. 1981). “Although the definition of “adjudicatory proceeding” in 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(1) contains no reference to minimum price setting, Cumberland Farms notes that the Model State Administrative Procedure Act, which is the prototype for state legislation on the subject, expressly includes…”
John Doe v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2018 ME 164 (Me. 2018).
Fleming v. Comm'r, Dep't of Corr., 2002 ME 74 (Me. 2002).
Fisher v. Dame, 433 A.2d 366 (Me. 1981).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(9)(8)(4) — 1 case
Maine Mun. Assoc. v. Maine Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2015).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(9)(A) — 13 cases
Cobb v. Bd. of Counseling Professionals Licensure, 2006 ME 48 (Me. 2006). “" 5 M.R.S. § 8002(9)(A) (2005). However, specifically excepted from this definition are "[d]ecisions issued in adjudicatory proceedings.”
New England Whitewater Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988). “5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(9) (Pamph.1987). It is the contention of the Department and the intervenors that the Department made no changes in the rules, but rather, that the criteria used in making the allocations and disclosed during the allocation process were only “explanatory…”
Forest Ecology Network v. Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 2012 ME 36 (Me. 2012). “” 5 M.R.S. § 8002(1). Although the rulemak-ing process in this case was not initiated by LURC itself, the ensuing process, the standards employed, and the approved plan were all steeped in LURC’s statutory authority to engage in rulemaking.”
Stiff v. Alabama Alcoholic Bev. Control Bd., 878 So. 2d 1138 (Ala. 2003).
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2014 ME 56 (Me. 2014). “[¶ 27] The Maine Administrative Procedure Act defines a “rule” as a “regulation, standard, code, statement of policy, or other agency guideline or statement of general applicability ... that is or is intended to be judicially enforceable and implements, interprets or makes…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(9)(B) — 3 cases
Christopher J. Roderick v. State of Maine, 2013 ME 34 (Me. 2013).
Aroostook Med. Ctr. v. Walsh (Me. Super. Ct 2004).
Schoff v. Maine Dept. of Corr. (Me. Super. Ct 2015).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(9)(B)(1) — 2 cases
Mallinckrodt US LLC v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2014 ME 52 (Me. 2014).
Miller v. Maine Dep't of Corr. (Me. Super. Ct 2004).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(9)(B)(3) — 2 cases
Cobb v. Bd. of Counseling Professionals Licensure, 2006 ME 48 (Me. 2006). “" 5 M.R.S. § 8002(9)(A) (2005). However, specifically excepted from this definition are "[d]ecisions issued in adjudicatory proceedings.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2014 ME 56 (Me. 2014). “[¶ 27] The Maine Administrative Procedure Act defines a “rule” as a “regulation, standard, code, statement of policy, or other agency guideline or statement of general applicability ... that is or is intended to be judicially enforceable and implements, interprets or makes…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(9)(B)(4) — 2 cases
Downeast Energy Corp. v. Fund Ins. Review Bd., 2000 ME 151 (Me. 2000).
S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Dep't of Envtl. Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2004).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(9)(B)(l) — 1 case
Robbins v. Maine Comm'n on Indigent Legal Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2022).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8002(9XA) — 1 case
Cumberland Farms N., Inc. v. Maine Milk Comm'n, 428 A.2d 869 (Me. 1981). “Although the definition of “adjudicatory proceeding” in 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(1) contains no reference to minimum price setting, Cumberland Farms notes that the Model State Administrative Procedure Act, which is the prototype for state legislation on the subject, expressly includes…”
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.