5 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11001

Section 11001(1) permits an aggrieved bidder to seek Superior Court review of a final agency decision awarding a contract through competitive bidding, unless a statute precludes review.

Brown v. State, Department of Manpower Affairs · filed 1981-03-04(1)

Does the Maine Administrative Procedure Act give the Superior Court, on petition of a disappointed bidder, authority to examine a state agency’s actions in accepting a bid and awarding a contract pursuant to a competitive bidding system allegedly abused by the agency? We hold that it does. ... Under the Maine APA, xhe Superior Court is granted jurisdiction to hear petitions for review filed by “any person who is aggrieved by final agency action. ...” 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001(1) (emphasis added).

Section 11001(1) allows only a party aggrieved by an agency decision to appeal it to the Superior Court.

Ullis v. Inhabitants of Town of Boothbay Harbor · filed 1983-04-13(1)

Because the commission affirmed the Town’s denial of the Ullises’ liquor license application (albeit for reasons different from the selectmen’s), the Town was not “aggrieved” by the commission decision and had no standing to challenge it in the courts. Only aggrieved parties may appeal agency action to the Superior Court. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001(1).

Section 11001(1) permits only parties aggrieved by final agency action to seek judicial review.

Island Foundation v. Halperin · filed 1983-07-11(1)

The Superior Court’s action was correct under 5 M.R. S.A. § 11001(1), which permits only “aggrieved” parties to seek judicial review of final agency action.

A person seeking judicial review of final agency action under § 11001(1) must show a particularized injury distinct from harm suffered by the public at large.

Ricci v. Superintendent, Bureau of Banking · filed 1984-12-18(1)

Thus, the central inquiry is whether the party seeking judicial relief has suffered an injury in fact distinct from the harm experienced by the public at large.

Section 11001 allows a person with a resulting particularized injury from final agency action to seek judicial review and raise issues affecting the action’s validity.

Anderson v. Commissioner of the Department of Human Services · filed 1985-03-28

The injury the plaintiff claims is that her AFDC benefits are diminished as the result of the Department’s action. Having standing to appeal as a person aggrieved, therefore, the plaintiff may raise any issue that affects the validity of the administrative action.

Section 11001 permits judicial review by a person aggrieved by agency action; a competitor’s allegations of particularized harm can be sufficient to establish standing at the dismissal stage.

Hammond Lumber Co. v. Finance Authority of Maine · filed 1987-02-11

A person is aggrieved within the meaning of 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001 if that person has suffered particularized. injury, Ricci v. Superintendent, Bureau of Banking, 485 A.2d 645, 647 (Me.1984), the agency action “operatpng] prejudicially and directly upon a party’s property, pecuniary or personal rights.” Jamison v. Shepard, 270 A.2d 861, 862-63 (Me.1970). ... Although these allegations are concluso-ry in nature and lack specificity, they are minimally sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss the petition based on standing alone.

Section 11001 allows a competitor that appeared before the agency to seek judicial review of its approval decision.

Harold D. Smith & Sons, Inc. v. Finance Authority · filed 1988-06-29

We find this argument to be without merit in light of our recent decisions that hold that a competitor who appeared before the Authority has standing to object to the issuance of the certificate of approval.

Section 11001 allows a person aggrieved by final agency action to seek judicial review, but requires a particularized injury from that action.

Storer v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 1995-02-17

Any person who is “aggrieved” by final agency action is entitled to judicial review by the Superior Court. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001 (1989). ... Without any notable particularized injury, Storer was not an aggrieved party, and therefore, he had no standing to seek judicial review.

Section 11001(1) entitles an aggrieved person to judicial review but does not preclude other statutes from granting standing more broadly.

Superintendent of Insurance v. Attorney General · filed 1989-05-19(1)

Section 11001(1) states only the entitlement of an aggrieved party to judicial review. The statute contains no language precluding other statutory grants.

Section 11001 requires a petitioner seeking judicial review of final agency action to be aggrieved.

Drake v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2000-08-30

Finally, petitioner is aggrieved as required for judicial review from final agency action. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001.

Section 11001 requires a person seeking judicial review of agency action to show an injury distinct from harm experienced by the public at large.

Lindemann v. Maine Comm'n on Gov't Ethics & Election Practices · filed 2008-02-26(1)

Rule 80C entitles "any person who is aggrieved by final agency action" to judicial review in the Superior Court. M.R. Civ. P. 80C; 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001. ... The petitioner has expressed only a generalized injury indistinct from any injury to the public at large and as a result has failed to satisfy the "threshold issue" of standing.

A person is aggrieved and may seek judicial review under section 11001(1) when final agency action causes a particularized injury to that person’s property, financial, or personal rights.

Nelson v. Bayroot, LLC · filed 2008-05-29(1)

A person is aggrieved within the meaning of the APA if that person has suffered particularized injury— that is, if the agency action operated prejudicially and directly upon the party’s property, pecuniary or personal rights.

Section 11001(1) requires a person seeking review of final agency action to show a particularized injury distinct from any injury to the public at large.

Lindemann v. Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices · filed 2008-12-16(1)

“Aggrieved,” while not defined in MAPA, has been previously defined by this Court as requiring particularized injury — that is, the agency action or inaction must operate “prejudicially and directly upon the party’s property, pecuniary or personal rights.” ... In addition, we have required that the particularized injury be distinct from any injury experienced by the public at large.

Section 11001(1) entitles a person aggrieved by final agency action to judicial review; an association seeking review must establish standing in the record.

Thanks But No Tank v. Maine Dep't of Envtl. Protection · filed 2012-11-13(1)

Section 11001 provides that a "person aggrieved by final agency action" is entitled to judicial review. 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1) (2011). ... The record is insufficient to allow the court to determine whether the association has standing.

A department subrogated to a person's rights has standing to seek judicial review of an agency decision affecting those rights.

Maine Dep't of Health and Human Servs. v. Wood · filed 2014-11-25(1)

Mr. Wood has cited to Section 11 001 ( 1) of Maine Administrative Procedures act, which provides in pertinent part regarding agency actions that "any person who is aggrieved by final agency action shall be entitled to judicial review thereof in the Superior Court in the manner provided by this subchapter." 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001(1). ... DSER has demonstrated that it is subrogated to the rights of Ms. Morin, and, therefor, it has standing to appeal the Decision of the Hearing Officer to this court.

Section 11001(1) allows an aggrieved person to seek judicial review of final agency action; a party is not aggrieved when the agency grants all the relief it can grant, even if the party disagrees with its reasoning.

Maine Behavioral Health Care v. Dahl · filed 2016-11-29(1)

However, even after reading the entire record and the informative memoranda of counsel, the Court is left with the conclusion that: a) Petitioner challenged the validity of the contract awards; b) the Appeal Committee below had two options before it, i.e. validate the contract or invalidate the contract; c) the Appeal Committee granted the relief sought by Petitioner, or at least granted all the relief the Appeal Committee is statutorily authorized to grant; and d) the Petitioner is not "aggrieved" by the Appeal Committee's decision, at least as that term is used within the meaning of the Administrative Procedures Act, but rather simply doesn't agree with the rationale the Committee used to grant relief.

Section 11001(1) gives a person aggrieved by final agency action the right to judicial review; nearby property owners alleging potential particularized harm have standing.

BMR Brunswick, LLC v. Maine Dep't of Environmental Protection · filed 2014-07-02(1)

Under the Maine APA, "any person who is aggrieved by final agency action" is entitled to judicial review. 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1) (2013). ... Petitioners allege that they will be negatively impacted by increased noise, vibrations, and emissions if the railway facility is constructed. These allegations are sufficient to give petitioners standing.

Section 11001(1) allows any person aggrieved by final agency action to seek judicial review, even if that person did not participate in the agency proceedings.

Penobscot Energy Recovery Company v. Maine Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2017-01-06(1)

Because both § 346 of DEP's statute and § 11001 of the APA state that any "person" aggrieved by an agency action may appeal to this court, rather than any "party," a petitioner need not have participated at the agency level in order to have standing to appeal that decision to this court.

Section 11001(2) requires a person seeking review of agency inaction to have a particularized injury distinct from the public’s; being denied information unavailable to everyone does not qualify.

News Center Maine v. Hamilton · filed 2018-05-03(2)

The Maine Administrative Procedure Act similarly states that "any person aggrieved by the failure or refusal of an agency to act shall be entitled to judicial review thereof in the Superior Court." 5 M.R.S. § 11001(2) (emphasis added). ... The Law Court has previously found that to be "aggrieved," a party must suffer a particularized injury, distinct from any injury experienced by the public at large. ... Here, the injury suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the Commissioner's decision not to issue the draft press releases after consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, is indistinguishable from that of the general public. ... For these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff does not have standing to bring a Rule SOC appeal of the Commissioner's decision not to issue the draft press releases.

Only a person aggrieved by final agency action may appeal; a representative cannot appeal in their own name when only the benefit recipient's rights are affected.

Yarcheski v. Department of Health and Human Services · filed 2018-06-27(1)

The Maine Administrative Procedure Act that, along with M.R. Civ. P. SOC, governs appeals from adjudicative decisions of state agencies limits the right of appeal to persons "aggrieved by final agency action." 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1). ... Because only B.K.Y. is the recipient of Section 19 benefits, only she can take an appeal from actions affecting her benefits.

Section 11001(2) requires a person seeking review of an agency’s failure or refusal to act to be aggrieved; qualified applicants who were not hired had a particularized injury sufficient for standing.

Carson v. Commissioner of the Dep't. of Health and Human Services · filed 2019-06-27(2)

In order to have standing to pursue 80C review of an agency's failure or refusal to act, a person must be aggrieved by the failure or refusal to act. 5 M.R.S. § 11001(2). ... Because they were qualified for vacant PHN positions but did not get hired, DeCato and Ellis have suffered a particularized injury sufficient to confer standing to challenge the Department's implementation of the program.

Section 11001 allows private citizens to seek judicial review as aggrieved parties when agency action causes them particularized injury.

Black v. Cutko · filed 2021-08-10

Applying the Law Court’s analysis in Fitzgerald to the Private Citizen Plaintiffs’ allegations, the Court finds a particularized injury, such that the Private Citizen Plaintiffs are aggrieved under 5 M.R.S. § 11001.

Section 11001 permits an abutting landowner who suffers a particularized injury from an agency enforcement action to seek judicial review of that action.

Storie v. Land Use Planning Commission · filed 2021-09-14(1)-(2)

When an abutting landowner suffers a particularized injury as the result of an agency's enforcement action such as the LUPC's settlement agreement, the agency's enforcement action is a proper subject for judicial review under the APA.

Section 11001(1) allows a person aggrieved by final agency action to seek Superior Court review; a spouse cannot petition in her own name when the action adjudicated only the other spouse's rights.

Hawes v. Maine Public Employees Retirement System · filed 2021-10-07(1)

The Maine Administrative Procedure Act authorizes an appeal to the Superior Court from a final agency action by "any person who is aggrieved by the final agency action." 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1). ... The court agrees with MPERS that Ms. Hawes is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of the Maine Administrative Procedure Act. Only Philip's rights were adjudicated by the MPERS Board of Trustees. ... The court concludes that Susan Hawes lacks standing to bring this petition on her own behalf and, therefore, it should be dismissed.

Section 11001(1) permits a person aggrieved by final agency action to seek judicial review; the person must have a particularized injury distinct from that of the public at large.

Mabee v. Board of Environmental Protection · filed 2021-11-18(1)

MAPA governs judicial review of state agency actions and provides a right to review to any person “aggrieved by final agency action.” 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1). ... As such, Petitioners have not and will not suffer any particularized injury distinct from the public at large from the grant of the Water Permit or the installation of the wastewater pipes. They lack standing to sue on these grounds and their complaints in relation to Nordic’s TRI in the land are thus moot.

Section 11001(2) allows an organization to seek review of agency inaction when the inaction causes it a sufficiently particularized injury.

Block v. Beal · filed 2024-07-15(2)

Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that Animal Outlook has suffered a sufficiently particularized injury and has demonstrated that it has been aggrieved by DACF9s alleged failure or refusal to enforce animal cruelty laws in aquaculture facilities.

Section 11001(1) excludes APA judicial review when another statute specifically precludes review or limits the issues subject to review.

McElroy v. State Employees Appeals Board · filed 1981-04-06(1)

The “final and binding” clause of section 752 satisfies the exception in section 11001(1) and precludes APA review of the Appeals Board’s decision.

Section 11001 does not provide judicial review when another statute makes a different method of review exclusive.

Fernald v. Maine State Parole Board · filed 1982-07-22

We have already noted that 15 M.R.S.A. § 2122 expressly provides that the post-conviction review statute shall be the exclusive mode of review of the matters that it covers. This provision brings this case within the exception clauses of sections 11001 and 8003 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Section 11001 provides judicial review of adjudicatory proceedings for LURC zoning decisions through section 689.

Maine Land Use Regulation Commission v. White · filed 1987-02-27

Section 689 expressly incorporates the provisions for judicial review contained in 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001 (review of adjudicatory proceedings) and not 5 M.R.S.A. § 8058 (review of agency rule). Consequently, LURC’s zoning decision became final and binding as to the Whites’ predecessors-in-interest.

Section 11001(1) permits judicial review of final prison disciplinary action when no statute precludes review or limits the issues, even if no constitutional violation is alleged.

Clark v. Maine Department of Corrections · filed 1983-08-04(1)

Furthermore, there is no statutory provision specifically precluding judicial review or limiting the issues for review. Therefore, lacking statutory provisions excluding such review, we must conclude that the Superior Court had jurisdiction to review this case whether or not constitutionally protected interests were allegedly infringed.

Section 11001(1) excludes workers’ compensation appeals from Superior Court review because the Workers’ Compensation Act provides for direct review by the Law Court.

Kuvaja v. Bethel Savings Bank · filed 1985-07-12(1)

The procedure for appeal of a workers’ compensation decision outlined in 39 M.R.S.A. §§ 103-A through 103-E (Phamp. 1979-1984) falls squarely within the first sentence of section 11001.

Section 11001(1) excludes Workers’ Compensation Commission decisions from Superior Court review because a statute provides for direct review by the Supreme Judicial Court, even when a petition for appellate review is denied.

Hastings v. Union Boiler Co. · filed 1986-12-05(1)

The plain language of section 11001(1) excludes from the APA provision for Superior Court review of agency action any decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission because 39 M.R.S.A. § 103-C provides for direct review by the Supreme Judicial Court without regard to whether an appellant obtains plenary appellate review.

Section 11001’s broad appeal language does not authorize an appeal when a more specific statute limits who may appeal.

State v. MacLean · filed 1989-07-06

Rights of appeal are granted only to “any person whose license is suspended under this section." 29 M.R.S.A. § 1311-A(8)(E). This specific language precludes the application of the broader appeal language of the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 M.R. S.A. § 11001 (1989).

For review of nonconsensual professional licensing discipline, § 11001(1) is read with “Administrative Court” substituted for “Superior Court.”

Reiser v. Maine Bd. of Pharm. · filed 2000-07-06(1)

Moreover, when reading section 11001 of the cited subchapter, one is required by section 8003(5) of Title 10 to substitute “Administrative Court” for “Superior Court,” “notwithstanding any other provision of law.”

Section 11001(1) permits Superior Court review of a Workers’ Compensation Board assessment when the workers’ compensation statute provides no applicable review procedure.

Hanover Insurance Co. v. Workers' Compensation Board · filed 1997-05-16(1)

Accordingly, because the Act is silent regarding judicial review of assessment decisions, the decision was properly appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to the Maine Administrative Procedure Act.

Section 11001(1) permits review of final agency action only within constitutional limits on judicial interference with executive discretion.

New England Outdoor Center v. Commissioner of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife · filed 2000-04-14(1)

[t]he broad language of 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(4) (defining final agency action) and 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001(1) (conferring jurisdiction on the Superior Court to review final agency action) must be read in light of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. The Legislature may not constitutionally confer on the judiciary a commission to roam at large reviewing any and all final actions of the executive branch. Some executive action is by its very nature not subject to review by an exercise of judicial power. ... Thus, even when an agency action is final, it does not follow that the action is subject to judicial review. ... Accordingly, were a court to order the Department to conduct such an investigation, it would be improperly interfering with the agency’s discretionary power to investigate. Such a result is inconsistent with settled principles of the separation of powers. We therefore affirm the judgment dismissing the appeal on this ground.

Section 11001(1) does not provide Superior Court review when another statute expressly provides for direct review by the Law Court.

D'Amato v. S.D. Warren Co. · filed 2003-09-19(1)

Accordingly, decisions of workers’ compensation hearing officers are not subject to appellate review pursuant to the Maine A.P.A. because the Workers’ Compensation Act expressly provides for appellate review in the Law Court.

Section 11001(1) excludes APA judicial review when another statute provides for direct review.

Morrill v. Maine Turnpike Auth. · filed 2009-01-06(1)

The APA expressly excludes from the right to review of final agency action cases where a statute provides for direct review.

Section 11001’s judicial review procedure does not govern a Board license revocation taken under 10 M.R.S. § 8003(5).

Michalowski v. Board of Licensure in Medicine · filed 2012-12-06

The Board did not revoke Michalowski's license on the grounds provided by 5 M.R.S. § 10004(1), and the procedure for judicial review set forth in 5 M.R.S. §§ 11001 and 11002 (2011) does not govern the Board's action in diis case.

Section 11001 permits judicial review of final agency action or an agency’s failure or refusal to act, but did not provide review of the budget law implementation at issue.

Maine Citizens for Clean Elections v. LePage · filed 2018-08-02

The Maine Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA) provides that a person aggrieved by "final agency action" may seek judicial review in the Superior Court. 5 M.R.S. §11001(1). Similarly, an aggrieved person may seekjudicial review from an agency's failure or refusal to act, and the Superior Court may order the agency to make a decision within a specified time. 5 M.R.S. §11001(2). ... The implementation of the budgetary laws generally applicable to the operation of State Government, in the context of this case, is not subject to judicial review pursuant to MAPA and M. R. Civ. P. 80C.

Section 11001(2) permits a person aggrieved by an agency’s failure or refusal to act to seek an order compelling agency action.

Hildebrandt v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 1981-06-05(2)

Section 11001(2) provides that a person seeking review of an agency’s failure or refusal to act may request an order compelling the agency to act. Plaintiff’s complaint discloses on its face that such relief was neither contemplated by plaintiff nor appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

Section 11001(2) permits judicial review of agency inaction, but a court may compel action only when the agency was legally bound to act.

Annable v. Board of Environmental Protection · filed 1986-04-07(2)

The Maine Administrative Procedure Act affords a right to judicial review to those aggrieved by an agency’s failure or refusal to act. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001(2) (1979). ... Mandamus was appropriate to compel an agency to take action that the agency was legally bound to take. ... There is no provision in the Site Location Law, however, obligating the Board to consider a petition similar to the one this Plaintiff brought before it. ... The Superior Court was therefore correct in dismissing the Plaintiff’s petition for review of agency inaction or failure to act.

Section 11001(2) does not authorize a court to grant a permit when an agency fails to act on an application.

D & J Associates v. Board of Environmental Protection · filed 1989-06-05(2)

The relief comprehended by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001(2) (1979) for failure of the Board to act on an application does not include the granting of a permit by the court.

Section 11001(2) gives the Superior Court jurisdiction to review an agency’s failure to meet a statutory deadline for a final decision.

Eastern Maine Medical Center v. Maine Health Care Finance Commission · filed 1992-01-03(2)

The Commission’s failure to meet this deadline is clearly the sort of agency inaction at which § 11001 is aimed. Thus, the Superior Court erred by failing to exercise jurisdiction over the case.

Section 11001(2) allows relief for an agency’s failure or refusal to act; a late scheduled hearing does not qualify when the agency is proceeding toward a decision.

St. Joseph Hosp. v. Concannon, Comm'r, Maine Dep't of Human Servs. · filed 2001-11-02(2)

... outside the time period prescribed for such action, it certainly was not a “failure or refusal to act"; instead, it was a tardy action which, once taken and a decision made, could have allowed the petitioner to correct any procedural errors made at a reconsideration hearing if its application was denied.

Section 11001(2) permits a petition to compel an agency decision when the agency has missed a statutory deadline.

Central Maine Medical Ctr. v. Concannon · filed 2000-09-25(2)

This matter came on for hearing before the court on the petition of Central Maine Medical Center pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001(2) for an order to require the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Human Services (Commissioner) (DHS) to issue his decision on CMMC’s application for a Certificate of Need to establish a cardiac surgery center. ... Instead, the remedy for such perceived delay would be application to the Superior Court for an order forcing the decision, which is. precisely what CMMC has done.

Section 11001 allows persons aggrieved by an agency’s failure or refusal to act to seek judicial review in Superior Court, including voters challenging a refusal to certify petition signatures.

Dobson v. Dunlap · filed 2008-09-16

But, the voters’ focus is too narrow. They had a right to challenge the registrars’ refusal to certify their names (or the names of other voters) under the Maine Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA). The MAPA provides that “[a]ny person aggrieved by the failure or refusal of an agency to act shall be entitled to judicial review thereof in the Superior Court.” 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001.

Section 11001(2) permits judicial review when an agency fails or refuses to act, but a vote rejecting a proposed rule is an act.

Lingley v. Maine Workers' Compensation Board · filed 2003-03-10(2)

The only remaining source of authority for review suggested by the Appellants is section 11001(2), which gives persons aggrieved by an agency’s refusal or failure to act a right to judicial review. When the Board voted on the motion to adopt the proposed rule, the motion failed to pass for lack of sufficient votes. The Board reached a decision by defeating the motion to adopt the rule. The vote was an act — not a refusal or failure to act. It is true that the result was the same as a refusal to promulgate the proposed rule, but a refusal to take a requested action is not identical to a refusal to act.

Section 11001(2) allows an aggrieved party to seek Superior Court relief when an agency fails to meet a statutory deadline, including an order requiring a decision by a specified date.

Maine Association of Health Plans v. Dirigo Health Agency · filed 2006-04-14(2)

It does have the authority to provide relief to an aggrieved party for failure of an agency to meet a statutory directive.

Section 11001(1) permits Superior Court review of a final agency decision when the challenge concerns whether the agency had jurisdiction, even if another statute makes its decisions final and binding.

Loder v. State of Maine · filed 2011-09-19(1)

Broadly speaking, 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001(1) provides that any person aggrieved by final agency action may seek review in the Superior Court "except ... where judicial review is specifically precluded or the issues therein limited by statute." ... Unlike the employee in McElroy, who wanted the Court to reevaluate the Appeals Board's factual decision, Loder merely asks this Court to assume jurisdiction in order to resolve a valid dispute over the Appeals Board's jurisdiction. As such, this Court's jurisdiction is proper in this case.

Section 11001(2) provides a remedy for a party aggrieved by an agency’s failure to act.

Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company v. Superintendent of Insurance · filed 2013-11-21(2)

The Administrative Procedure Act instead provides a remedy to parties “aggrieved by the failure” of an agency to act. 5 M.R.S. § 11001(2) (2012). GTL did not avail itself of that remedy.

Section 11001(2) does not permit judicial review of an agency’s procedural decision to continue an ongoing administrative proceeding rather than terminate it.

Doe v. Maine Board of Osteopathic License · filed 2020-01-07(2)

As with the decision to initiate administrative proceedings, the decision not to terminate an ongoing administrative proceeding is a procedural decision which does not give rise to a right to review pursuant to either 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1) or (2).

Section 11001 authorizes courts to determine whether an agency has complied with the law and to order compliance when it has not.

Maine Equal Justice Partners v. Hamilton · filed 2018-11-21

Ensuring that the ... Executive Branch acts in accordance with statutory and constitutional law is a specific, and well-established grant of authority to the Judicial Branch that has been directly delegated to it by the Legislature through Maine's Administrative Procedures Act. 5 M.R.S. § 11001.

Section 11001(2) limits relief for an agency’s failure to act to an order requiring a decision by a specified time; the claimant must also show prejudice caused by the delay.

Doe v. Maine Board of Osteopathic Licensure · filed 2020-11-17(2)

But section 11001(2) provides that “[t]he relief available in the Superior Court shall include an order requiring the agency to make a decision within a time certain.” Id. We have construed this language to mean that with respect to failure-to-act claims, this is the only relief we can grant. ... We conclude that a showing of prejudice is required to succeed in a claim for failure to act under the APA.

Section 11001(2) allows judicial review when an agency fails to provide a grievance form that due process requires it to provide.

Machiavelli v. Maine Department of Corrections · filed 2020-12-16(2)

As such, due process requires the Department to provide the Petitioner with a grievance form, and its failure to do so constitutes a failure to act within the meaning of 5 M.R.S. § 11001(2).

Section 11001(1) permits judicial review of final agency action, but an initial decision is not reviewable while agency reconsideration remains available.

Hale v. Petit · filed 1981-12-09(1)

Thus, the Department’s initial decision to issue or deny a certificate of need is not reviewable, since further recourse is provided within the Department, i.e., by a request for reconsideration. Rather, it is the Department’s decision to deny the request for reconsideration that is reviewable.

Section 11001(1) permits review of a final agency decision on disqualification even when a separate request to waive repayment remains unresolved.

Wheeler v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission · filed 1984-05-30(1)

For the above-stated reasons, we hold the decision of the Commission to disqualify Harve A. Wheeler constituted “final agency action” within the purview of the APA, and was properly before the Superior Court.

Section 11001(1) allows Superior Court review of a Bureau of Insurance arbitration decision when the decision is final agency action.

Livingstone v. A-R Cable Services of Maine · filed 2000-02-04(1)

Since there is no further action expected from the Bureau, and no further administrative review available, the arbitration decision was final agency action and is appealable to the Superior Court.

A board’s negative vote can constitute final agency action for judicial review rather than a failure to act.

Lingley v. Maine Workers' Compensation Bd. · filed 2002-01-30

The court concludes that the Board's vote on April 17, 2001, was not inaction but rather was negative action constituting final agency action for review purposes.

Section 11001(1) allows a person aggrieved by final agency action to seek judicial review; a private mental health facility’s grievance decision does not qualify.

Geary v. State of Maine, Dep't of Behavioral and Dev. Servs. · filed 2002-05-31(1)

Under the Maine Administrative Procedures Act, any person who is aggrieved by final agency action is entitled to judicial review. 5 MRS.A. § 11001(1). ... Under the plain meaning of the language laid out above, there is no indication that the actions of Spring Harbor fit within the parameters of final agency action under the Maine APA.

Section 11001(1) permits Superior Court review of final agency action; an agency substantiation that does not affect a person's legal rights, duties, or privileges is not reviewable under the section.

McEwen v. Maine Dep't of Human Servs. · filed 2002-12-16(1)

No “legal rights, duties or privileges” of the petitioner have been affected in any way nor has he been denied any forum for protection of his due process rights to dispose of legal or factual issues resulting from this “substantiation.”. Accordingly, there has been no final agency action (emphasis supplied). Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter and the petition is dismissed.

Section 11001(1) permits judicial review of final agency action and independent review of nonfinal action only when review of final action would not provide an adequate remedy.

Watts v. Maine Bd. of Envtl. Prot. · filed 2006-12-06(1)

Therefore, as a threshold matter, in order for the Superior Court to have jurisdiction to review the Board's action, Watts must show that the Board's action was either final agency action or, in the alternative, that final agency action would not provide him an adequate remedy.

Section 11001(1) entitles a person aggrieved by final agency action to judicial review in Superior Court.

Friedman v. Board of Environmental Protection · filed 2008-10-09(1)

Section 11001 unambiguously provides that Friedman has a right to judicial review of final agency action.

Section 11001(1) permits Superior Court review of final agency action; an agency dismissal is not reviewable under it when the complainant can still pursue the claim in a de novo civil action.

Tomer v. Maine Human Rights Commission · filed 2008-12-23(1)

Accordingly, there has been no “final agency action,” as that term is defined in section 8002(4), in this case. There being no final agency action, the Superior Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear Tomer’s appeal.

Section 11001(1) generally requires final agency action for judicial review, but an order compelling disclosure of material claimed to be confidential may be reviewed immediately under the death knell exception.

Maine Health Care Ass'n Workers' Compensation Fund v. Superintendent of Insurance · filed 2009-01-13(1)

We first note that the hearing officer’s order compelling disclosure in this matter is not “final agency action,” and we may dismiss an appeal sua sponte if we determine that it is interlocutory and taken from an agency decision that is not final. ... Accordingly, we conclude that the order compelling disclosure of material claimed to be protected by statute is immediately appealable pursuant to the “death knell” exception, and thus proceed to the merits of the Fund’s appeal.

Section 11001(1) permits Superior Court review of a prison grievance decision after the prisoner has used all available agency appeals and received a final decision.

Raynes v. Department of Corrections · filed 2010-10-14(1)

The determination of whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction in this matter depends on whether the grievance decision was a final agency action subject to appeal. See 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1) (“[A]ny person who is aggrieved by final agency action shall be entitled to judicial review thereof in the Superior Court.”). ... Because Raynes appealed through all channels available to him and received a final decision on the grievance, ... that decision was properly on review before the Superior Court.

Section 11001(1) permits judicial review of a final agency action, including a decision issued by department staff under delegated authority.

Tenants Harbor General Store, LLC v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2011-01-06(1)

Although the parties have not raised the issue, we do consider whether the administrative decision from which the LLC appeals constituted "final agency action" by the Department, such that the Superior Court had jurisdiction to review the determination. ... We therefore consider the letter decision from the Commissioner’s staff to constitute reviewable final agency action.

Section 11001(1) permits judicial review of final agency action; a decision is not final while further review remains available within the agency.

The Cedars v. DHHS · filed 2016-07-11(1)

Respondent's January 8 decision cannot be final agency action because further review of that decision was available within the agency.

Section 11001(1) does not permit an appeal from an agency’s decision to begin an investigation when that decision is not final agency action.

Clean Energy for ME, LLC v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices · filed 2020-12-22(1)

The Commission's May 22, 2020 decision to investigate whether plaintiff qualifies as a ballot question committee is not final agency action that is appealable under 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1), and plaintiffs appeal is therefore dismissed.

Section 11001(1) permits Superior Court review of final agency action; an advisory email from agency staff is not reviewable.

Hans Utsch et al. v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2024-01-30(1)

The Maine Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides the Superior Court with jurisdiction to hear petitions for review of a “final agency action.”3 See 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1) (2023); Brown v. Dep’t of Manpower Affs., 426 A.2d 880, 883-84 (Me. 1981). ... The email is simply advisory in nature, unreviewable under the APA and Rule 80C.

Section 11001 permits judicial review of final agency action by corrections officials, including matters pursued through the prison grievance process.

Fleming v. Commissioner, Department of Corrections · filed 2002-05-03

Although there is some question as to whether Fleming was attempting to seek review of the agency rulemaking process, we have interpreted his complaint as one pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C and 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001 seeking review of the actions of the DOC officials in denying him the opportunity for exercise and certain items such as hot nutritious food.

Section 11001(1) allows a person aggrieved by final agency action to seek Superior Court review of an agency decision to release records.

The Lewin Group, Inc. v. Dep't of Health and Human Svs. · filed 2014-03-13(1)

In contrast, Maine's APA permits "any person who is aggrieved by fmal agency action {to seek] judicial review thereofin the Superior Court." 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1).

Section 11001(1) permits independent review of nonfinal agency action only when review after final agency action would not provide an adequate remedy.

Northeast Occupational Exchange, Inc. v. Bureau of Rehabilitation · filed 1984-03-06(1)

Nonfinal agency action is independently reviewable pursuant to the APA when “review of the final agency action would not provide an adequate remedy.” 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001(1).

Section 11001 permits a petitioner seeking review of final agency action to challenge the validity of a regulation applied in that action.

Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2003-04-29

Although the initial pleadings in this case are both entitled “Petition to Review Final Agency Action” and were brought pursuant to Rule 80C and 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001, CLF and the Gagnebins are not limited to challenging only the issuance of the permit.

Section 11001(1) requires a showing of irreparable injury to obtain review of nonfinal agency action; alleged cost and delay without a concrete showing do not suffice.

York Hosp. v. Perfetto · filed 2004-03-16(1)

Petitioner has not provided an allegation in its petition as to the nature and extent of the harm to be visited upon it in the event the respondents prevail on its motion to dismiss nor the basis upon which it would be considered irreparable. ... Such matters of reality of pure economics in the business world is serious and may be devastating to a small sized health care provider but it is not necessarily an irreparable injury.

Section 11001(1) permits review of intermediate or nonfinal agency action when final agency action would not provide an adequate remedy; the petitioner must satisfy that exception to bypass exhaustion.

Miller v. Maine Dep't of Corr. · filed 2004-11-17(1)

The statutory exception to the need to exhaust the agency grievance process is that intermediate or nonfinal agency action may be reviewed if “the final agency action would not provide an adequate remedy.” 5 M.RS.A. § 11001(1). ... In the court’s view, the petitioner cannot satisfy this test because, according to the record, he was aware of the new mail policy and its effect on him in August of 2002 but waited for a year to file this petition.

Section 11001 permits review of a nonfinal agency decision when waiting for final action would make judicial review ineffective.

Littlefield v. Walsh · filed 2005-02-04(1)

Furthermore, the Law Court has noted the intent of drafters of 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001 that even nonfinal agency decisions should be reviewed “when review of the final action would be ineffective.” ... It is also far from clear whether Petitioner could attack the basis for DHS’s substantiation decision and her presence in the MACWIS database in the course of a recertification or employment review.

Section 11001 permits independent review of nonfinal agency action only when review of the final action would not provide an adequate remedy; speculation that final review would be inadequate is insufficient.

Budget Business Machines v. Wells Ogunquit School District · filed 2017-05-12

Plaintiff argues section 11001 permits the court to consider its claim despite its failure to exhaust remedies. Plaintiff claims because it believes the school committee would not have adequately considered its appeal, that it was not an adequate remedy. However, due to plaintiffs failure to appeal the issue to the school committee, all we are left with are plaintiffs speculations about what may have happened.

Section 11001 permits independent judicial review of preliminary agency action only when review of the final agency action would not provide an adequate remedy.

St. Mary's D'Youville Pavilion v. Maine Department of Health and Human Services · filed 2020-05-28

Consequently, the Commissioner's decision that Cedars has been aggrieved, and thus has standing to pursue the informal review process, constitutes non-final preliminary agency action. ... The Court also cone! udes that future review of the Department's final agency action will provide an adequate remedy.

Section 11001(1) permits review of nonfinal agency action only when review after final agency action would not provide an adequate remedy.

Hamilton v. Board of Licensure in Medicine · filed 2024-05-30(1)

Under the Maine Administrative Procedure Act (APA), we review “final agency action.” 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1) (2024). We review nonfinal action only if the review of the final agency action “would not provide an adequate remedy.” Id. ... Any challenge that ... Hamilton wished to make to the order directing the evaluation was fully reviewable at the conclusion of the complaint proceedings, providing Hamilton with an adequate remedy. Thus, his petition is premature and the order is unreviewable under the APA.

Section 11001(1) waives Maine's common law sovereign immunity for claims seeking state court judicial review of an agency decision.

ME. ASS'N OF INTERDEPENDENT NEIGHBORHOODS v. Petit · filed 1987-04-28(1)

It is undisputed that the Maine legislature has waived the Commissioner's common law sovereign immunity to Haggan's state court claims for judicial review of the administrative denial of her application. See Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 5, § 11001(1); cf. Maine v. Thiboutot, 405 A.2d 230 (Me.1979), aff'd on other grounds, 448 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980).

Section 11001(1) waives the Commissioner’s common law sovereign immunity for state court review of an administrative denial of Medicaid benefits.

Maine Association of Interdependent Neighborhoods v. Petit · filed 1987-04-28(1)

The Court concludes, however, that the Commissioner has waived any eleventh amendment sovereign immunity he might claim. It is undisputed that the Maine legislature has waived the Commissioner’s common law sovereign immunity to Haggan’s state court claims for judicial review of the administrative denial of her application. See Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 5, § 11001(1); cf Maine v. Thiboutot, 405 A.2d 230 (Me.1979), aff'd on other grounds, 448 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980).