Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8057 (2026)

Compliance

✓ current as of May 2026

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

1. Rules; exception. Rules adopted in a manner other than that prescribed by section 8052, subsections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5‑A and 7 and by sections 8053 and 8054 are void and of no legal effect, except that insubstantial deviations from the requirements of section 8053 do not invalidate the rule subsequently adopted. Rules in effect prior to July 1, 1978 become void and of no legal effect on July 1, 1979, unless originally adopted after notice published in a newspaper of general circulation in some area of the State and opportunity for hearing or unless adopted in accordance with this subchapter.

[PL 2007, c. 181, §5 (AMD).]

2. Rules not approved. Rules not approved and filed in the manner prescribed by section 8056, subsection 1, paragraphs A and B, shall be void and of no legal effect. Rules in effect prior to July 1, 1978, become void and of no legal effect on December 31, 1979, unless filed with the Secretary of State in accordance with section 8056, subsection 1, paragraph B.

[PL 1979, c. 425, §10 (AMD).]

3. Agency, responsibility. The requirements of this subchapter do not relieve any agency of the responsibility of compliance with any statute requiring that its rules be filed with or approved by any designated person before they become effective.

[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 694, §35 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 425, §10 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 680, §5 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 181, §5 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: John Doe v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2018 ME 164 (Me. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

John Doe v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2018 ME 164 (Me. 2018). · cites it 3× “" 5 M.R.S. § 8057(1) (2017). [¶ 13] The Department's letter notifying Doe that he had been substantiated stated that Doe had "thirty calendar days" to appeal the substantiation finding, but no such thirty-day appeal period is found in the Department's 2000 policy-the 2000 policy…”

New England Whitewater Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988). “1973), since 5 M.R.S.A. § 8057 provides that such changes in the rules as were made by the Department here are “void and of no legal effect.”

Lovell v. One Bancorp, 690 F. Supp. 1090 (D. Me. 1988). · cites it 2× “5 M.R.S.A. § 8057. The Superintendent did not formally adopt conversion regulations; he simply declared that the FHLBB regulations would govern Maine conversions.”

Christopher J. Roderick v. State of Maine, 2013 ME 34 (Me. 2013). “1995); 5 M.R.S. § 8057(1). An agency is, however, allowed to “provide guidance for its employees and the public without adopting the guiding materials as rules, as long as those materials are not intended to have, and are not given, the force and effect of *372 law.”

Mallinckrodt US LLC v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2014 ME 52 (Me. 2014). “Mallinckrodt’s argument that no preexisting rules governed the proceeding therefore fails.”

Robert Bocko v. Univ. of Maine Sys., 2024 ME 8 (Me. 2024). “First, if we find “that a rule exceeds the rule-making authority of the agency” or is void for the agency’s failure to follow the procedural processes of the Maine Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 M.R.S. § 8057(1), (2) (2023), we must “declare the rule invalid,” 5 M.”

Fulkerson v. Comm'r, Maine Dep't of Human Servs., 628 A.2d 661 (Me. 1993). “5 M.R.S.A. § 8057 (1989) specifies the violations that automatically invalidate rules and provides that insubstantial deviations from requirements for rulemaking shall not invalidate the rule.”

Gorayeb v. Maine Bd. of Licensure in Med. (Me. Super. Ct 2023). · cites it 2× “The violations rendering a rule per se invalid are enumerated in 5 M.R.S. § 8057(1)-(2) and "principally involve a denial of public participation.”

Bennett v. Land Use Plan. Comm'n (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “Background and Procedural History On January 8, 2016, the LUPC received a petition to remove Milton Township from the expedited permitting area for wind energy development.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8057(1) — 7 cases

John Doe v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2018 ME 164 (Me. 2018). “" 5 M.R.S. § 8057(1) (2017). [¶ 13] The Department's letter notifying Doe that he had been substantiated stated that Doe had "thirty calendar days" to appeal the substantiation finding, but no such thirty-day appeal period is found in the Department's 2000 policy-the 2000 policy…”

Christopher J. Roderick v. State of Maine, 2013 ME 34 (Me. 2013). “1995); 5 M.R.S. § 8057(1). An agency is, however, allowed to “provide guidance for its employees and the public without adopting the guiding materials as rules, as long as those materials are not intended to have, and are not given, the force and effect of *372 law.”

Mallinckrodt US LLC v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2014 ME 52 (Me. 2014). “Mallinckrodt’s argument that no preexisting rules governed the proceeding therefore fails.”

Lovell v. One Bancorp, 690 F. Supp. 1090 (D. Me. 1988). “5 M.R.S.A. § 8057. The Superintendent did not formally adopt conversion regulations; he simply declared that the FHLBB regulations would govern Maine conversions.”

Robert Bocko v. Univ. of Maine Sys., 2024 ME 8 (Me. 2024). “First, if we find “that a rule exceeds the rule-making authority of the agency” or is void for the agency’s failure to follow the procedural processes of the Maine Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 M.R.S. § 8057(1), (2) (2023), we must “declare the rule invalid,” 5 M.”

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.