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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9057 (2026)

Evidence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Rules of privilege.  Unless otherwise provided by statute, agencies need not observe the rules of evidence observed by courts, but shall observe the rules of privilege recognized by law.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
2.  Evidence.  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. Agencies may exclude irrelevant or unduly repetitious evidence.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
3.  Witnesses.  All witnesses shall be sworn.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
4.  Prefiling testimony.  Subject to these requirements, an agency may, for the purposes of expediting adjudicatory proceedings, require procedures for the prefiling of all or part of the testimony of any witness in written form. Every such witness shall be subject to oral cross-examination.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
5.  Written evidence; exception.  No sworn written evidence shall be admitted unless the author is available for cross-examination or subject to subpoena, except for good cause shown.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §23 (NEW).]
6.  Confidential information.  Information may be disclosed that is confidential pursuant to Title 22, chapters 958‑A and 1071 and sections 7703 and 1828; Title 24, section 2506; and Title 34‑A, except for information, the disclosure of which is absolutely prohibited under Title 34‑A, section 1216. Disclosure may be only for the determination of issues involving unemployment compensation proceedings relating to a state employee, state agency personnel actions and professional or occupational board licensure, certification or registration.  
A. For the purpose of this subsection, "hearing officer" means presiding officer, judge, board chair, arbitrator or any other person considered responsible for conducting a proceeding or hearing subject to this subsection. In the case of the Civil Service Appeals Board, the presiding officer is the entire board. "Employees of the agency" means employees of a state agency or department or members, agents or employees of a board who are directly related to and whose official duties involve the matter at issue.   [PL 2003, c. 205, §1 (AMD).]
B. The confidential information disclosed pursuant to this subsection is subject to the following limitations:  
(1) The hearing officer determines that introduction of the confidential information is necessary for the determination of an issue before the hearing officer;  
(2) During the introduction of confidential information, the proceeding is open only to the hearing officer, employees of the agency, parties, parties' representatives, counsel of record and the witness testifying regarding the information, and access to the information is limited to these people. Disclosure is limited to information directly related to the matter at issue;  
(3) Witnesses are sequestered during the introduction of confidential information, except when offering testimony at the proceeding;  
(4) The names or identities of reporters of confidential information or of other persons may not be disclosed, except when disclosure is determined necessary and relevant by the hearing officer; and  
(5) After hearing, the confidential information is sealed within the record and may not be further disclosed, except upon order of court.   [PL 1997, c. 271, §1 (AMD).]
[PL 2003, c. 205, §1 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW). PL 1987, c. 714, §1 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 175, §1 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 271, §1 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 205, §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 57 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Maddocks v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2001 ME 60 (Me. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maddocks v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2001 ME 60 (Me. 2001). · cites it 6× “Evidentiary matters in- administrative proceedings are governed by 5 M.R.S.A. § 9057 (1989). 2 “The mere admission of incompetent evidence by an administrative agency does not relieve the party appealing from the agency’s order of his burden to show prejudice resulting therefrom.”
Kelley v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 27 (Me. 2009). · cites it 2× “Cross-examination [¶24] Kelley argues that the medical board’s memoranda are “prefiled testimony” pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 9057(4) (2008), and that she was prejudiced by the inability to cross-examine the medical board on its findings in these memoranda at the appeal hearing.”
Credit Counseling Centers, Inc. v. City of South Portland, 2003 ME 2 (Me. 2003). · cites it 4× “5 M.R.S.A. § 9057(1) (2002). "Hearsay testimony is admissible if it is `the kind of evidence upon which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs.”
Wood v. Superintendent of Ins., 638 A.2d 67 (Me. 1994). · cites it 3× “” See 5 M.R.S.A. § 9057(2) (1989). Wood contends that the evidence of the out-of-state proceedings does not satisfy this requirement because (1) the Superintendent did not attempt to determine the sources of information, (2) the evidence with respect to some of the proceedings…”
New England Whitewater Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988). “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 9057(3) (1979). The plaintiffs were not represented by counsel at the hearing and failed to object to the omission of the oath.”
State v. Jones, 55 A.3d 432 (Me. 2012). “12 (citing 5 M.R.S.A. § 9057(2) (2002) (stating the rule for admissibility of evidence in an administrative adjudicatory proceeding)).”
State v. Renfro, 157 A.3d 775 (Me. 2017). “Compare 5 M.R.S. § 9057(2) (2016), and 29-A M.R.S.”
State v. James, 2002 ME 86 (Me. 2002). “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 9057(1) (2002). Hearsay evidence may be admitted in an administrative hearing, however, only if "it is the kind of evidence upon which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs,” meaning that its reliability is assured.”
Petition of Edwin R. Jonas III for Reinstatement to the Bar of the State of Maine, 2017 ME 48 (Me. 2017). “See also 5 M.R.S. § 9057(2) (2016). [¶24] We begin by reviewing the standard that applies to attorney admission proceedings.”
In re Jonas, 164 A.3d 120 (Me. 2017). “See also 5 M.R.S. § 9057(2) (2016). [¶ 22] We begin by reviewing the standard that applies to attorney admission proceedings.”
Hale-Rice v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 1997 ME 64 (Me. 1997). “”); see also 5 M.R.S.A. § 9057(2). They provide for a hearing officer who is to “ensure that all parties have a full opportunity to present their claims orally or in writing and to secure witnesses and evidence to establish their claims.”
Mallinckrodt LLC v. Littell, 616 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Me. 2009). “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 9057. ' Parties shall be entitled “to require the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any evidence relating to any issue of fact in the proceeding.”
Show all 57 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9057(1) — 14 cases
Credit Counseling Centers, Inc. v. City of South Portland, 2003 ME 2 (Me. 2003). “5 M.R.S.A. § 9057(1) (2002). "Hearsay testimony is admissible if it is `the kind of evidence upon which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs.”
State v. James, 2002 ME 86 (Me. 2002). “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 9057(1) (2002). Hearsay evidence may be admitted in an administrative hearing, however, only if "it is the kind of evidence upon which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs,” meaning that its reliability is assured.”
Aviation Oil Co. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 584 A.2d 611 (Me. 1990).
Smith v. Maine Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 456 A.2d 2 (Me. 1983).
Keller v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 477 A.2d 1159 (Me. 1984).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9057(2) — 34 cases
Wood v. Superintendent of Ins., 638 A.2d 67 (Me. 1994). “” See 5 M.R.S.A. § 9057(2) (1989). Wood contends that the evidence of the out-of-state proceedings does not satisfy this requirement because (1) the Superintendent did not attempt to determine the sources of information, (2) the evidence with respect to some of the proceedings…”
Maddocks v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2001 ME 60 (Me. 2001). “Evidentiary matters in- administrative proceedings are governed by 5 M.R.S.A. § 9057 (1989). 2 “The mere admission of incompetent evidence by an administrative agency does not relieve the party appealing from the agency’s order of his burden to show prejudice resulting therefrom.”
Credit Counseling Centers, Inc. v. City of South Portland, 2003 ME 2 (Me. 2003). “5 M.R.S.A. § 9057(1) (2002). "Hearsay testimony is admissible if it is `the kind of evidence upon which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs.”
State v. Jones, 55 A.3d 432 (Me. 2012). “12 (citing 5 M.R.S.A. § 9057(2) (2002) (stating the rule for admissibility of evidence in an administrative adjudicatory proceeding)).”
State v. Renfro, 157 A.3d 775 (Me. 2017). “Compare 5 M.R.S. § 9057(2) (2016), and 29-A M.R.S.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9057(3) — 4 cases
New England Whitewater Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988). “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 9057(3) (1979). The plaintiffs were not represented by counsel at the hearing and failed to object to the omission of the oath.”
Maddocks v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2001 ME 60 (Me. 2001). “Evidentiary matters in- administrative proceedings are governed by 5 M.R.S.A. § 9057 (1989). 2 “The mere admission of incompetent evidence by an administrative agency does not relieve the party appealing from the agency’s order of his burden to show prejudice resulting therefrom.”
Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017).
Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9057(4) — 6 cases
Kelley v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 27 (Me. 2009). “Cross-examination [¶24] Kelley argues that the medical board’s memoranda are “prefiled testimony” pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 9057(4) (2008), and that she was prejudiced by the inability to cross-examine the medical board on its findings in these memoranda at the appeal hearing.”
Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017).
Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017).
Bocchino v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
Thomas v. Maine State Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2008).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9057(5) — 1 case
Ellsworth ME Solar, LLC v. Pub. Utils. Comission, 2026 ME 10 (Me. 2026).
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.