Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9055 (2026)

Ex parte communications; separation of functions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

1. Communication prohibited. In any adjudicatory proceeding, no agency members authorized to take final action or presiding officers designated by the agency to make findings of fact and conclusions of law may communicate directly or indirectly in connection with any issue of fact, law or procedure, with any party or other persons legally interested in the outcome of the proceeding, except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.

[PL 1985, c. 506, Pt. A, §5 (AMD).]

2. Communication permitted. This section shall not prohibit any agency member or other presiding officer described in subsection 1 from:

A. Communicating in any respect with other members of the agency or other presiding officers; or [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

B. Having the aid or advice of those members of the agency member's or other presiding officer's own agency staff, counsel or consultants retained by the agency who have not participated and will not participate in the adjudicatory proceeding in an advocate capacity. [RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. B, §81 (COR).]

[RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. B, §81 (COR).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW). PL 1979, c. 425, §11 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 506, §A5 (AMD). RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. B, §81 (COR).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: Passadumkeag Mountain Friends v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2014 ME 116 (Me. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Passadumkeag Mountain Friends v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2014 ME 116 (Me. 2014). · cites it 3× “The Board counters that 5 M.R.S. § 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…”

Marina Narowetz v. Bd. of Dental Practice, 2021 ME 46 (Me. 2021). · cites it 4× “Because the Board issued factual findings that were insufficient to permit judicial review, we must remand the matter to the Board; and because the same assistant attorney general who advised the Board acted in an advocate capacity contrary to 5 M.R.S. § 9055 (2021), we remand…”

New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 448 A.2d 272 (Me. 1982). “In any adjudicatory proceeding, no agency members authorized to take final action or presiding officers designated by the agency to make findings of fact and conclusions of law shall communicate directly or indirectly in connection with any issue of fact, law or procedure, with…”

Miller v. Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2006 ND 1 (N.D. 2006). · cites it 2× “100/10-60 (2005); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 9055 (2002); Nev.”

Mallinckrodt US LLC v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2014 ME 52 (Me. 2014). · cites it 2× “The Board is permitted by statute to have “the aid or advice of those members of his own agency staff, counsel or consultants retained by the agency who have not par *437 ticipated and will not participate in the adjudicatory proceeding in an advocate capacity.”

Mallinckrodt LLC v. Littell, 616 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Me. 2009). “At oral argument, the Defendants represented that under 5 M.R.S.A. § 9055, no one from the MDEP will be permitted to give *144 technical advice to the Board outside the formal adjudicatory process.”

Maddocks v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2001 ME 60 (Me. 2001). “5 M.R.S.A. § 9055(1)(1989). Although the record indicates that one of the commissioners communicated ex parte with both Black and Halloran, Maddocks was informed of the communications and then failed to object during the hearing.”

Berry v. Maine Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 394 A.2d 790 (Me. 1978). “See 5 M.R.S.A. §§ 9055(1) and (2). See also, Mechanic Falls Water Co.”

Ingerson v. State, 491 A.2d 1176 (Me. 1985). “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 9055(2) (Supp.1984-1985). Similarly, the presence of the Parole Department staff during the Board’s deliberations without participation in those deliberations, does not demonstrate any bias on the part of members of the Board.”

Scott v. Cent. Maine Power Co., 709 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Me. 1989). “5, section 9063 requires that administrative hearings be conducted in an impartial manner, free from bias on the part of the presiding officer or agency members involved in the proceeding.”

Baffer v. Dep't of Human Servs., 553 A.2d 659 (Me. 1989). “, 5 M.R.S.A. § 9055(1) (Supp.1988) (distinguishing between agency members authorized to take final action and presiding officers who only make findings of fact and conclusions of law).”

Miller v. Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2006 ND 1 (N.D. 2006). “100/10-60 (2005); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 9055 (2002); Nev.”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9055(1) — 4 cases

Passadumkeag Mountain Friends v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2014 ME 116 (Me. 2014). “The Board counters that 5 M.R.S. § 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…”

Berry v. Maine Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 394 A.2d 790 (Me. 1978). “See 5 M.R.S.A. §§ 9055(1) and (2). See also, Mechanic Falls Water Co.”

Baffer v. Dep't of Human Servs., 553 A.2d 659 (Me. 1989). “, 5 M.R.S.A. § 9055(1) (Supp.1988) (distinguishing between agency members authorized to take final action and presiding officers who only make findings of fact and conclusions of law).”

Narowetz v. State of Maine Bd. of Dental Practice (Me. Super. Ct 2020).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9055(1)(1989) — 2 cases

Maddocks v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2001 ME 60 (Me. 2001). “5 M.R.S.A. § 9055(1)(1989). Although the record indicates that one of the commissioners communicated ex parte with both Black and Halloran, Maddocks was informed of the communications and then failed to object during the hearing.”

Waxler v. Maine Real Est. Comm'n, 1998 ME 65 (Me. 1998).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9055(2) — 2 cases

Ingerson v. State, 491 A.2d 1176 (Me. 1985). “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 9055(2) (Supp.1984-1985). Similarly, the presence of the Parole Department staff during the Board’s deliberations without participation in those deliberations, does not demonstrate any bias on the part of members of the Board.”

Turner v. Apollonio, 441 A.2d 679 (Me. 1982).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9055(2)(B) — 2 cases

Mallinckrodt US LLC v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2014 ME 52 (Me. 2014). “The Board is permitted by statute to have “the aid or advice of those members of his own agency staff, counsel or consultants retained by the agency who have not par *437 ticipated and will not participate in the adjudicatory proceeding in an advocate capacity.”

Mallinckrodt US v. Maine Dep't of Envtl. Prot.. (Me. Super. Ct 2012).

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.