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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9056 (2026)

Opportunity to be heard

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Opportunity for hearing.  The opportunity for hearing in an adjudicatory proceeding shall be afforded without undue delay.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
2.  Rights.  Unless limited by stipulation under section 9053, subsection 4, or by agency order pursuant to section 9054, subsections 2 or 4, or unless otherwise limited by the agency to prevent repetition or unreasonable delay in proceedings, every party shall have the right to present evidence and arguments on all issues, and at any hearing to call and examine witnesses and to make oral cross-examination of any person present and testifying.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).
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 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: Christian Action Network v. Maine, 679 F. Supp. 2d 140 (D. Me. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Christian Action Network v. Maine, 679 F. Supp. 2d 140 (D. Me. 2010). · cites it 2× “In scheduling the October hearing, the State proposed to enforce the Act against Christian Action Network and, if successful in proving violations, to impose penalties.”
Mallinckrodt LLC v. Littell, 616 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Me. 2009). · cites it 2× “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 9056(2). “Evidence shall be admitted if it is the kind of evidence upon which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs”; “[witnesses shall be sworn”; and, “[n]o sworn written evidence shall be admitted unless the author is…”
New England Whitewater Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988). “§ 9054(3); and the right of every party “to present evidence and argument on all issues and at any hearing to call and examine witnesses and to make oral cross-examination of any person present and testifying,” 5 M.R.S.A. § 9056(2). In making the allocations, the Department must…”
John Doe v. Maine Bd. of Osteopathic Licensure, 2020 ME 134 (Me. 2020). “[¶25] An unreasonable agency delay, although not rising to the level of a constitutional violation, might still violate the APA and require such relief. See 14 5 M.”
Fichter v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 604 A.2d 433 (Me. 1992). “…the BEP’s decision on remand, a procedure approved in Sanborn v. Town of Eliot, 425 A.2d 629, 631 (Me.1981). 3 . See 5 M.R.S.A. § 9056(2) (1989).”
Mallinckrodt US LLC v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2014 ME 52 (Me. 2014). · cites it 2× “The consultant will not offer testimony and will not be subject to cross-examination. Documents produced by the consultant will be available to the parties and included in the record.”
Maddocks v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2001 ME 60 (Me. 2001). “Throughout both hearings, the commissioners requested that Maddocks produce evidence to support his position and indicated their willingness to listen to his testimony.”
Seider v. Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists, 2000 ME 118 (Me. 2000). “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 9056. Seider claims that the two and one-half year gap between the conclusion of the Board’s investigation of the complaint and the contested case hearing was an “undue delay” that violated her due process rights and section 9056.”
Martin v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 723 A.2d 412 (Me. 1998). “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 9056(2) (1988). [¶ 16] Here, Martin was afforded both notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”
Berry v. Maine Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 394 A.2d 790 (Me. 1978). “See also, relevant portions of the Maine Administrative Procedure Act, 5 M.R.S.A. §§ 9056, 9057 (Supp.1978). Appellee insists, in its discussion of the statute of limitations issue, that a § 296 investigation is sui generis, virtually unconfined in scope as to topics or time of…”
Baffer v. Dep't of Human Servs., 553 A.2d 659 (Me. 1989). “" 5 M.R.S.A. § 9056(2) (1979). Although the APA recognizes the possibility of an appeal "within the agency," the reference is to an appeal of an agency decision made at the close of an adjudicatory proceeding, 5 M.”
Young v. Bd. of Trs. of Maine State Ret. Sys., 601 A.2d 86 (Me. 1992). “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 9056(2) (1989). At the hearing, the rules of evidence do not apply, and ”[e]vidence shall be admitted if it is the kind of evidence upon which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9056(1) — 1 case
John Doe v. Maine Bd. of Osteopathic Licensure, 2020 ME 134 (Me. 2020). “[¶25] An unreasonable agency delay, although not rising to the level of a constitutional violation, might still violate the APA and require such relief. See 14 5 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9056(2) — 11 cases
Mallinckrodt LLC v. Littell, 616 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Me. 2009). “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 9056(2). “Evidence shall be admitted if it is the kind of evidence upon which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs”; “[witnesses shall be sworn”; and, “[n]o sworn written evidence shall be admitted unless the author is…”
New England Whitewater Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988). “§ 9054(3); and the right of every party “to present evidence and argument on all issues and at any hearing to call and examine witnesses and to make oral cross-examination of any person present and testifying,” 5 M.R.S.A. § 9056(2). In making the allocations, the Department must…”
Christian Action Network v. Maine, 679 F. Supp. 2d 140 (D. Me. 2010). “In scheduling the October hearing, the State proposed to enforce the Act against Christian Action Network and, if successful in proving violations, to impose penalties.”
Fichter v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 604 A.2d 433 (Me. 1992). “…the BEP’s decision on remand, a procedure approved in Sanborn v. Town of Eliot, 425 A.2d 629, 631 (Me.1981). 3 . See 5 M.R.S.A. § 9056(2) (1989).”
Mallinckrodt US LLC v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2014 ME 52 (Me. 2014). “The consultant will not offer testimony and will not be subject to cross-examination. Documents produced by the consultant will be available to the parties and included in the record.”
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.