Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 7
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 7, § 3651 (2026)

Reimbursement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1987, c. 383, §2 (RP).
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 5 cases, 1979–1993 · leading case: Pettitt v. Lizotte, 454 A.2d 329 (Me. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pettitt v. Lizotte, 454 A.2d 329 (Me. 1982). · cites it 3× “The Pettitts sought recovery under common law negligence and 7 M.R.S.A. § 3651 (1982). After a trial in Superior Court (Androscog-gin County), a jury returned a verdict for the defendant.”
Lewis v. Penney, 632 A.2d 439 (Me. 1993). · cites it 2× “He sued all three defendants on claims of strict liability pursuant to 7 M.R.S.A. § 3651 1 and of negligence. Plaintiff argues that despite the fact that the jury found him negligent, the Superior Court erred by denying him recovery on the statutory claim.”
Byram v. Main, 523 A.2d 1387 (Me. 1987). “But see 7 M.R.S.A. § 3651 (1979) (damage done by a dog).”
Howard v. Proctor, 495 A.2d 828 (Me. 1985). · cites it 2× “The complaint alleged strict liability under the common law and absolute liability under 7 M.R.S.A. § 3651 (1979) 2 against Proctor.”
State v. Clarke, 396 A.2d 228 (Me. 1979). “The license requirement is an eminently reasonable method for controlling rabies as well as tracing the dog’s owner so that such owner can answer in damages, 7 M.R.S.A. § 3651, or fine, 7 M.R.S.A. § 3652 (Supp.”
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.