Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9063 (2026)

Bias of presiding officer or agency member

✓ current as of May 2026

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

1. Hearings; impartial. Hearings must be conducted in an impartial manner. Upon the filing in good faith by a party of a timely charge of bias or of personal or financial interest, direct or indirect, of a presiding officer or agency member in the proceeding requesting that the presiding officer or agency member be disqualified, that presiding officer or agency member shall determine the matter as a part of the record.

[RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. B, §84 (COR).]

2. Counsel. Notwithstanding section 9055, the person involved may consult with private counsel concerning the charge.

[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW). RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. B, §84 (COR).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: All. of Auto. Mfrs. v. Gwadosky, 353 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D. Me. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

All. of Auto. Mfrs. v. Gwadosky, 353 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D. Me. 2005). · cites it 6× “Ripeness This Court first addresses the State’s assertion that Alliance’s due process challenge to Section 12 is not ripe for judicial consideration because there is no actual proceeding before the Board and Alliance has not sought recusal under the Maine Administrative…”

New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 448 A.2d 272 (Me. 1982). “The Maine Administrative Procedure Act (M.A.P.A.) expressly provides that an agency staff member may act as a presiding officer in any hearing.”

Mallinckrodt LLC v. Littell, 616 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Me. 2009). “5 M.R.S.A. § 9063. The Board consists of ten members appointed by the Governor, subject to review by the joint standing committee of the Maine Legislature having jurisdiction over natural resource matters and to confirmation by the Legislature.”

Scott v. Cent. Maine Power Co., 709 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Me. 1989). · cites it 2× “Either the examiner or the commissioner, who is the presiding officer at said hearing, shall at the outset of said hearing inform the public as to the steps necessary to preserve their right to appeal the final order or decision of the commission to the Supreme Judicial Court…”

Residential & Cmty. Support Servs., Inc. v. Maine Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2024). “2 2 DHHS faults RCSS for failing to seek the Commissioner’s recusal pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 9063(1). However, as the First Circuit appropriately observed in Esso Standard Oil Co.”

Teer v. State of Bd. of Veterinary Med. (Me. Super. Ct 2020). “Teer did not make any motion to have either the Board member or the Hearing Officer address the issue of whether they were biased pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 9063(1). D. "Intentional" Misrepresentation Dr.”

Gosselin v. Maine Bd. of Osteopathic Lincensure (Me. Super. Ct 2022). “See 5 M.R.S. § 9063(1). Page 3 of 4 opportunity to appeal any decision of the Board in accordance with M.”

Mulready v. Bd. of Real Est. Appraisers (Me. Super. Ct 2009). “See also 5 M.R.S. § 9063(1) (2007) ("Hearings shall be conducted in an impartial manner.”

Kimball v. Superintendent of Ins. & Maine Bureau of Ins. (Me. Super. Ct 2014). “" 5 M.R.S. § 9063(1). The claim of bias arose from a comment by the Superintendent's counsel in another proceeding initiated by the non-Intervenor Petitioners other than Robert Kimball.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9063(1) — 7 cases

All. of Auto. Mfrs. v. Gwadosky, 353 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D. Me. 2005). “Ripeness This Court first addresses the State’s assertion that Alliance’s due process challenge to Section 12 is not ripe for judicial consideration because there is no actual proceeding before the Board and Alliance has not sought recusal under the Maine Administrative…”

Scott v. Cent. Maine Power Co., 709 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Me. 1989). “Either the examiner or the commissioner, who is the presiding officer at said hearing, shall at the outset of said hearing inform the public as to the steps necessary to preserve their right to appeal the final order or decision of the commission to the Supreme Judicial Court…”

Residential & Cmty. Support Servs., Inc. v. Maine Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2024). “2 2 DHHS faults RCSS for failing to seek the Commissioner’s recusal pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 9063(1). However, as the First Circuit appropriately observed in Esso Standard Oil Co.”

Teer v. State of Bd. of Veterinary Med. (Me. Super. Ct 2020). “Teer did not make any motion to have either the Board member or the Hearing Officer address the issue of whether they were biased pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 9063(1). D. "Intentional" Misrepresentation Dr.”

Gosselin v. Maine Bd. of Osteopathic Lincensure (Me. Super. Ct 2022). “See 5 M.R.S. § 9063(1). Page 3 of 4 opportunity to appeal any decision of the Board in accordance with M.”

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.