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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9061 (2026)

Decisions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every agency decision made at the conclusion of an adjudicatory proceeding must be in writing or stated in the record and must include findings of fact sufficient to apprise the parties and any interested member of the public of the basis for the decision. A copy of the decision must be delivered or promptly mailed to each party to the proceeding or the party's representative of record. Written notice of the party's rights to review or appeal of the decision within the agency or review of the decision by the courts, as the case may be, and of the action required and the time within which the action must be taken in order to exercise the right of review or appeal, must be given to each party with the decision.   [RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. B, §82 (COR).]
The agency shall maintain a record of the vote of each member of the agency with respect to the agency decision.   [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW). RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. B, §82 (COR).
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 34 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2021 · leading case: Gorham v. Androscoggin Cnty., 2011 ME 63 (Me. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gorham v. Androscoggin Cnty., 2011 ME 63 (Me. 2011). · cites it 2× “See 5 M.R.S. § 9061 (2010) (requiring agency decision to be stated in the record or written, and to include “findings of fact sufficient to apprise the parties and any interested member of the public of the basis for the decision,” and requiring a copy of the decision to be…”
Uliano v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2009 ME 89 (Me. 2009). · cites it 2× “(Uliano I), 2005 ME 88, ¶¶ 23-25 , 876 A.2d 16, 21-22 . *419 [¶ 57] Despite our direction in the prior remand, the Superior Court found that the Board's rambling narrative did not permit meaningful appellate review.”
Bean v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 485 A.2d 630 (Me. 1984). · cites it 3× “Finally, the plaintiff contends that the Superior Court erred in finding that the Commission made sufficiently specific findings of fact, as required by 5 M.R.S.A. § 9061 (1979), 2 with respect to the reasonableness of his action in leaving work.”
Schwartz v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2006 ME 41 (Me. 2006). · cites it 2× “5 M.R.S. § 9061 (2005); 1 M.R.S. § 407(1) (2005); Hannum v.”
Christian Fellowship & Renewal Ctr. v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16 (Me. 2001). “§ 2691(3)(E) (1996) (decisions of municipal board of appeals must include a statement of findings and conclusions); 30-A M.”
Cotton v. Maine Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 431 A.2d 637 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “The standard against which Commission findings are to be judged is, in relevant part, as set forth in 5 M.R.S.A. § 9061: 1 “Every agency decision made at the conclusion of an adjudicatory proceeding shall be in writing or stated in the record, and shall include findings of fact…”
Seider v. Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists, 2000 ME 206 (Me. 2000). “Seider filed a petition for review on April 4, 1997, almost two years after the Board's order, but because the Board failed to include, in its order, written notice of Seider's appellate rights as required by 5 M.R.S.A. § 9061 (1989). Seider was allowed to advance her petition.”
Seider v. Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists, 1998 ME 78 (Me. 1998). · cites it 4× “The copy of the Board's order sent to Seider and her attorney did not include written notice of Seider's appellate rights as required by 5 M.R.S.A. § 9061 (1989). Although Seider's attorney notified the Board of this defect in December, 1996, the Board did not supply Seider or…”
Stephen Doane v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2021 ME 28 (Me. 2021). “See 5 M.R.S. § 9061 (2021) (“Every agency decision made at the conclusion of an adjudicatory proceeding shall be in writing or stated in the record, and shall include findings of fact sufficient to apprise the parties and any interested member of the public of the basis for the…”
Zegel v. Bd. of Soc. Worker Licensure, 2004 ME 31 (Me. 2004). “5 M.R.S.A. § 9061 (2002) (providing that an agency’s decision “shall include findings of fact sufficient to apprise the parties and any interested member of the public of the basis for the decision”); Ga-shgai, 390 A.”
Merrow v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 495 A.2d 1197 (Me. 1985). · cites it 2× “5 M.R.S.A. § 9061 (1979) 4 does not require an agency to make detailed incident-by-incident fact finding.”
Bradbury Mem'l Nursing Home v. Tall Pines Manor Assocs., 485 A.2d 634 (Me. 1984). · cites it 2× “1978), and the general requirement for findings of fact imposed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 M.R.S.A. § 9061 (1979). An administrative agency cannot validly adopt a rule that relieves it from making findings in an adjudicatory proceeding simply by declaring, in advance…”
Show all 34 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9061(2) — 1 case
Meeks v. Concannon, Comm'r, Maine Dep't of Human Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2001).
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.