Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8058 (2026)

Judicial review of rules

✓ current as of May 2026

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

1. Judicial review. Judicial review of an agency rule, or of an agency's refusal or failure to adopt a rule where the adoption of a rule is required by law, may be had by any person who is aggrieved in an action for declaratory judgment in the Superior Court conducted pursuant to Title 14, section 5951, et seq., which provisions shall apply to such actions wherever not inconsistent with this section. Insofar as the court finds that a rule exceeds the rule-making authority of the agency, or is void under section 8057, subsection 1 or 2, it shall declare the rule invalid. In reviewing any other procedural error alleged, the court may invalidate the rule only if it finds the error to be substantial and related to matters of such central relevance to the rule that there is a substantial likelihood that the rule would have been significantly changed if the error had not occurred. If the court finds that the rule is not procedurally invalid and not in excess of the agency's rule-making authority, its substantive review of that rule shall be to determine whether the rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law. The phrase "otherwise not in accordance with law" shall apply only to the review authorized in the preceding sentence and shall not be construed so as to limit or replace in any way section 8003. In the event that the court finds that an agency has failed to adopt a rule as required by law, the court may issue such orders as are necessary and appropriate to remedy such failure.

[PL 1985, c. 680, §6 (AMD).]

2. Failure to seek judicial review. The failure to seek judicial review of an agency rule in the manner provided by subsection 1 shall not preclude judicial review thereof in any civil or criminal proceeding.

[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW). PL 1979, c. 669, §1 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 680, §6 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 40 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2003 ME 62 (Me. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2003 ME 62 (Me. 2003). · cites it 3× “Standard of Review [¶ 21] The standard of review for a challenge to the validity of a rule, whether raised in a declaratory judgment action or a Rule 80C petition, is contained in 5 M.R.S.A. § 8058(1). 6 See Cumberland Farms N.”

Euphrem Manirakiza v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2018 ME 10 (Me. 2018). “That petition and complaint included four counts: Count I alleged that the Department erred when it found that Ma-fiirakiza was not entitled to food assistance under Paragraph D; Count II requested that the court certify the action as a class action and, pursuant to 5 M.R.S. §…”

Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 15 A.3d 1263 (Me. 2011). “See 5 M.R.S. § 8058 (2010). . Although this amendment has not been codified in Title 38, the Department nonetheless requires developers to submit decommissioning plans as part of any wind energy development application.”

Lingley v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd., 2003 ME 32 (Me. 2003). · cites it 2× “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 8058(1) (2002). This statute provides no limit on the time period that a person aggrieved by such refusal or failure may seek review in a declaratory judgment action pursuant to section 8058(1).”

Maine AFL-CIO v. Superintendent of Ins., 1998 ME 257 (Me. 1998). · cites it 3× “Title 5 M.R.S.A. § 8058 provides in pertinent part: Judicial review of rules 1.”

Cumberland Farms N., Inc. v. Maine Milk Comm'n, 428 A.2d 869 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “Employing one of the standards of review prescribed in 5 M.R.S.A. § 8058 (Supp. 1980-81) 1 — whether Order 80-6 was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion— the Superior Court upheld the order in its entirety.”

Normand v. Baxter State Park Auth., 509 A.2d 640 (Me. 1986). · cites it 4× “Judicial review of the Authority's rulemaking is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 M.R.S.A. § 8058 (1979 & Supp. 1985-1986), which provides in pertinent part: Insofar as the court finds that a rule was improperly adopted or exceeds the rulemaking authority of the…”

Fisher v. Dame, 433 A.2d 366 (Me. 1981). “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 8058(2). 9 . We emphasize that in our view the subject-matter here involved is not properly characterized as “zoning.”

Fulkerson v. Comm'r, Maine Dep't of Human Servs., 628 A.2d 661 (Me. 1993). · cites it 3× “3 The Superior Court applied the standard of review prescribed by 5 M.R.S.A. § 8058 (1989) 4 and held that the rules were valid because the procedural error, if any, was not substantial and the rule would not have changed significantly in the absence of any error.”

Me. Ass'n of Interdependent Neighborhoods v. Petit, 659 F. Supp. 1309 (D. Me. 1987). · cites it 2× “MAIN participated in the state rulemaking proceedings prior to the Commissioner's promulgation of the state $6,000/6% rule, and thereafter, in August of 1983, MAIN filed an action in state court against the Commissioner and the Secretary *1313 seeking review of the state rule…”

Ms. S. v. Reg'l Sch. Unit 72, 829 F.3d 95 (1st Cir. 2016). “12 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 8058 . Curiously, neither party’s briefing, either to us or the district court, refers to this provision when evaluating whether the Maine Legislature reviewed the reduced filing limitation in accordance with MAPA in 2010.”

Robert Bocko v. Univ. of Maine Sys., 2024 ME 8 (Me. 2024). · cites it 2× “[¶26] Title 5 M.R.S. § 8058 (2023) permits judicial review of an agency rule in any civil or criminal proceeding.”

Show all 40 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8058(1) — 20 cases

Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2003 ME 62 (Me. 2003). “Standard of Review [¶ 21] The standard of review for a challenge to the validity of a rule, whether raised in a declaratory judgment action or a Rule 80C petition, is contained in 5 M.R.S.A. § 8058(1). 6 See Cumberland Farms N.”

Lingley v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd., 2003 ME 32 (Me. 2003). “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 8058(1) (2002). This statute provides no limit on the time period that a person aggrieved by such refusal or failure may seek review in a declaratory judgment action pursuant to section 8058(1).”

Maine AFL-CIO v. Superintendent of Ins., 1998 ME 257 (Me. 1998). “Title 5 M.R.S.A. § 8058 provides in pertinent part: Judicial review of rules 1.”

Me. Ass'n of Interdependent Neighborhoods v. Petit, 659 F. Supp. 1309 (D. Me. 1987). “MAIN participated in the state rulemaking proceedings prior to the Commissioner's promulgation of the state $6,000/6% rule, and thereafter, in August of 1983, MAIN filed an action in state court against the Commissioner and the Secretary *1313 seeking review of the state rule…”

Robert Bocko v. Univ. of Maine Sys., 2024 ME 8 (Me. 2024). “[¶26] Title 5 M.R.S. § 8058 (2023) permits judicial review of an agency rule in any civil or criminal proceeding.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8058(1)(A) — 1 case

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

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8058(2) — 3 cases

Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2003 ME 62 (Me. 2003). “Standard of Review [¶ 21] The standard of review for a challenge to the validity of a rule, whether raised in a declaratory judgment action or a Rule 80C petition, is contained in 5 M.R.S.A. § 8058(1). 6 See Cumberland Farms N.”

Fisher v. Dame, 433 A.2d 366 (Me. 1981). “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 8058(2). 9 . We emphasize that in our view the subject-matter here involved is not properly characterized as “zoning.”

Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. State of Maine, Dep't of Envtl. Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2000).

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.