5 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11007

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Jackson Advertising Corp. v. State Tax Assessor · filed 1988-12-15(4)(C)

Finding no legal error, and concluding that Jackson has failed to demonstrate that the decision of the Assessor is irrational, arbitrary, capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion, we must uphold the decision of the Assessor.

Section 11007(4)(C) limits reversal of an agency decision to specified grounds, including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and abuse of discretion.

Maritime Energy v. Fund Ins. Review Bd. · filed 2000-07-21(4)(C)

This court may reverse the Board’s decision only if it violates a constitutional or statutory provision, exceeds its statutory authority, grounds itself on an unlawful procedure, is affected by bias or error of law, is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, or is arbitrary capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. See 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C).

Section 11007(4)(C) limits reversal or modification of an agency ruling to specified grounds, including legal or procedural error, lack of substantial evidence, and abuse of discretion.

Lowell v. Dunlap · filed 2005-09-12(4)(C)

Agency rulings may be reversed or modified on appeal only if the court determines that they are: (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency, (3) made upon unlawful procedure, (4) affected by bias or error of law, (5) unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.

Section 11007 limits reversal of a final agency decision to specified grounds, including legal error, unlawful procedure, lack of substantial evidence, and arbitrary or capricious action.

O'Brien v. Comm'r, Maine Dep't of Health and Human Servs. · filed 2006-11-03

The Court may reverse a final agency decision only if its "findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are: (1)In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by bias or error of law; (5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion." 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007.

Section 11007(4) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when its conclusions lack substantial evidence or are arbitrary or capricious.

Town of Georgetown v. State of Maine, Bd. of Envtl. Protection · filed 2010-07-14(4)

Pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4), the court may reverse or modify an agency's decision ifthe administrative fIndings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are: "1) [i]n violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; 2) [i]n excess of the statutory authority of the agency; 3) [m]ade upon unlawful procedure; 4) [a]ffected by bias or error of law; 5) [u]nsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or 6) [a]rbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion." ... Not only is the Board's conclusion reasonable, supported by substantial evidence and neither arbitrary nor capricious, the record leaves little room for any other conclusion.

Section 11007(4)(C) permits reversal or modification of an agency ruling only on specified grounds, including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and abuse of discretion.

Tardy v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2010-09-21(4)(C)

Agency rulings may only be reversed or modified on M.R. Civ. P. 80C appeal upon a finding that the administrative ruling is: (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by bias or by error oflaw; (5) unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.

Section 11007(4)(C) allows a court to vacate or modify an agency decision for unlawful procedure, insufficient evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Hopkins v. Department of Human Services · filed 2002-08-08(4)(C)

We will vacate or modify an agency’s decision only if the decision was “[m]ade upon unlawful procedure; [unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or [a]rbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.”

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to vacate an agency decision for specified legal, procedural, discretionary, or evidentiary defects.

Kroeger v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2005-04-07(4)(C)

We do not vacate an agency's decision unless it: violates the Constitution or statutes; exceeds the agency's authority; is procedurally unlawful; is arbitrary or capricious; constitutes an abuse of discretion; is affected by bias or an error of law; or is unsupported by the evidence in the record. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C) (2002).

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to vacate an agency decision for specified legal, procedural, evidentiary, or discretionary defects.

Cobb v. Board of Counseling Professionals Licensure · filed 2006-05-03(4)(C)

We will vacate the decision [only] if the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by bias or error of law; (5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C) (2005).

Section 11007 permits a court to vacate or modify an agency decision when its findings lack substantial evidence or its decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Town of Warren Ambulance Service v. Department of Public Safety, Maine Emergency Medical Services · filed 2007-08-28(4)(c)(5), (6)

We will vacate or modify an agency’s decision if the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are not supported by substantial evidence on the whole record or are arbitrary or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. ... Based on the record in this judicial proceeding, we cannot conclude that the Board erred when it determined that WAS failed to establish “extraordinary circumstances” in support of a waiver.

Section 11007 permits reversal of an administrative decision for statutory violations, excess of authority, procedural error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Cyr v. Bd. of Licensing of Auctioneers · filed 2010-07-28

Administrative decisions are subject to reversal under Rule 80C and 5 M.R.S. § 11007 if those decisions are in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, in excess of statutory authority, made upon unlawful procedure, affected by bias or error law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or are arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion.

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision for abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Danzig v. Maine Bd. of Soc. Worker Licensure · filed 2011-11-11(4)(C)

The court must affirm agency decisions unless it finds an abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence from the record.

Section 11007(4)(C) limits when a court may reverse or modify an agency decision, including for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Kwasnik v. Maine Dep't of Health and Human Svs. · filed 2012-03-20(4)(C)

The court may only reverse or modify an administrative agency's decision if it is 1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; 2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; 3) Made upon unlawful procedure; 4) Affected by bias or error of law; 5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or 6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. 5 M.R.S. §§ 11007(4)(C) (2010).

Section 11007(4) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency ruling only on specified grounds, including legal error, unlawful procedure, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Quinlan v. Secretary of State of Maine · filed 2012-10-29(4)

The Court's review of Agency rulings is very limited and the Agency's rulings may be reversed or modified on appeal only if the Court determines that they are 1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; 2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; 3) made upon unlawful procedure; 4) affected by bias or error of law; 5) unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or 6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4).

Section 11007(4)(C) limits when a court may reverse or modify an administrative decision, including for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or abuse of discretion.

Merrill v. Bd. of Trustees, Maine Pub. Employees Retirement Sys. · filed 2013-07-29(4)(C)

This Court may only reverse or modify an administrative decision if it is: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) In excess ofthe statutory authority ofthe agency; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by bias or error of law; (5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.

Section 11007(4)(C) limits reversal or modification of an agency decision to specified grounds, including legal error and lack of substantial evidence.

Fountain v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2013-08-12(4)(C)

The Superior Court may only reverse or modify an administrative decision if it is: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by bias or error of law; (5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C).

Section 11007(4)(C) limits reversal or modification of an agency decision to specified grounds, including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and abuse of discretion.

French v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2014-05-27(4)(C)

The court must affirm agency decisions unless it finds an abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence from the record.

Section 11007(4)(C) limits when a court may reverse or modify an agency decision, including for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or abuse of discretion.

Wright v. Maine Dep't of Health and Human Servs. · filed 2014-08-14(4)(C)

The court must affirm agency decisions unless it finds an abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence from the record.

Section 11007(4)(C)(2) provides for judicial relief when an agency acts beyond its statutory authority.

Metcalf v. State Tax Assessor · filed 2012-04-03(4)(C)(2)

The Notice of Assessment was "[i]n excess of the statutory authority of the agency" for purposes of 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C)(2).

Section 11007(4)(C) limits when the Superior Court may reverse or modify an administrative decision.

Turcotte v. Secretary of State · filed 2013-10-24(4)(C)

Under the statutory iteration, the Superior Court may only reverse or modify an administrative decision if it is: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; ... (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C).

Section 11007(C) permits reversal of an agency decision made in excess of statutory authority or through unlawful procedure.

Kimball v. Superintendent of Insurance & Maine Bureau of Insurance · filed 2014-04-11(C)

The Board's decision may also be reversed if it was in excess of statutory authority, or was made upon unlawful procedure. 5 M.R.S.§ 11007(C)(l)-(s).

Section 11007(4)(C)(4) permits reversal or modification of an agency decision affected by bias; a commissioner's former employment with a party's law firm alone does not establish bias.

Fox Islands Wind Neighbors v. Maine Dep't of Envtl. Protection · filed 2014-03-10(4)(C)(4)

Pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(4), the Superior Court may reverse or modify a decision by an administrative agency if it is affected by bias. ... However, in the absence of such law or regulation, as well as the definition of bias recently articulated by the Law Court, this Court is compelled to reject Petitioners' argument on bias.

Section 11007(4)(C)(6) allows a court to reverse or modify final agency action that is arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion.

Bitumar USA, Inc. v. Maine Dept. of Transportation · filed 2014-08-01(4)(C)(6)

The court may reverse or modify the agency's final action if it is "[u]nsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or [a]rbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion." 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5)-(6). ... For these reasons, Bitumar has not met the likelihood of success criterion in terms of showing that MDOT's temporary ban is potentially or likely liable to be overturned as an arbitrary or capricious agency decision or an abuse of discretion.

Section 11007(4)(c) limits when a court may vacate an agency decision, including when the decision is unsupported by record evidence.

Peters v. Comm'r, Maine Dep't of Health and Human Servcs · filed 2014-11-10(4)(c)

"A court will 'not vacate an agency's decision unless it: violates the Constitution or statutes; exceeds the agency's authority; is procedurally unlawful; is arbitrary or capricious; constitutes an abuse of discretion; is affected by bias or an error of law; or is unsupported by the evidence in the record.'" Kroeger v. Dep 't of Environmental Prot., 2005 ME 50,~ 7, 870 A.2d 566 (quoted in Alexander, Maine Appellate Practice § 452 at 312 (4th ed. 2013)); see also 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(c).

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to overturn an agency decision for legal error, unlawful procedure, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Giles v. Department of Agriculture · filed 2020-04-20(4)(C)

On an appeal under Rule BOC the court may overturn an agency's decision if it is (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, (2) in excess of the agency's statutory authority, (3) made upon unlawful procedure, (4) affected by bias or by errors of law, (5) unsupported by substantial evidence, or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C).

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency determination for the listed legal and evidentiary defects, including an abuse of discretion.

Penobscot Energy Recovery Company v. Maine Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2017-01-06(4)(C)

The court may reverse or modify any agency determination if the agency's findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions: ( 1) violate constitutional or statutory provisions, (2) exceed the agency's statutory authority, (3) are made upon unlawful procedure, (4) are affected by bias or error of law, (5) are unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, or (6) are arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C).

Section 11007(4)(C)(6) permits a court to set aside agency action as arbitrary or capricious when it is wilful and unreasoning and lacks consideration of the facts or circumstances.

AngleZ Behavioral Health Services v. Department of Health and Human Services · filed 2020-02-27(4)(C)(6)

Our “arbitrary or capricious” standard is high, and we will “not find that an administrative agency has acted arbitrarily or capriciously unless its action is ‘wilful and unreasoning’ and ‘without consideration of facts or circumstances.’”

Section 11007 permits a reviewing court to reverse an agency decision that violates constitutional or statutory law.

Jones v. Secretary of State · filed 2020-08-24(4)(C)

Therefore, the Secretary's decision that the proponents failed to provide the required number of signatures is REVERSED. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(C).

Section 11007 permits a court to modify or reverse an agency determination only on specified grounds, including unlawful procedure, insufficient evidence, or abuse of discretion.

Aquafortis Associates, LLC v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection · filed 2020-09-28

An agency determination can be modified or reversed only if the determination is: 1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; 2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; 3) rnade upon unlawful procedure; 4) affected by bias or error of law; 5) unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or 6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to reverse an agency decision for specified legal or procedural errors, unsupported findings, bias, or abuse of discretion.

Cooper v. Maine Dep't of Environmental Protection · filed 2022-02-08(4)(C)

A Court may reverse an agency decision upon a finding that the decision is: (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in exc ss of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by bias or error of law; (5) unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.

Section 11007(4) limits when a court may overturn an agency decision, including for legal error, arbitrary action, or lack of record support.

Dunn v. Bellows · filed 2023-03-07(4)

Under Rule 80C, the court is not permitted to overturn an agency9s decision <unless it: violates the Constitution or statutes; exceeds the agency9s authority; is procedurally unlawful; is arbitrary or capricious; constitutes an abuse of discretion; is affected by bias or error of law; or is unsupported by the evidence in the record.= Kroger v. Dep9t of Envtl. Prot., 2005 ME 50, 7, 870 A.2d 566; 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4).

Section 11007(C) allows a reviewing court to reverse an agency decision that violates constitutional or statutory provisions or was affected by bias.

HALSEY v. FEDCAP REHABILITATION SERVICES INC · filed 2023-03-15(C)

The reviewing court may also reverse DHHS’s decision if the agency’s determination was a violation of constitutional or statutory provisions or was affected by bias. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(C).

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence, affected by an error of law, or arbitrary or capricious.

Whynaught v. Maine State Housing Authority · filed 2023-06-28(4)(C)

The court may reverse or modify an agency's decision if it violates a constitutional or statutmy provision, exceeds the agency's statutory authority, is procedurally unlawful, is affected by bias or error oflaw, is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, or is arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C).

Section 11007(4)(C)(1) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision that violates constitutional or statutory provisions.

NASS v. MAINE BOARD OF LICENSURE IN MEDICINE · filed 2024-07-24(4)(C)(1)

As to the review of the underlying agency action, the state court may “[r]everse or modify the decision” upon concluding that “the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions . . . violat[e] constitutional or statutory provisions.” 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C)(1).

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision that is arbitrary or capricious.

Farrington v. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife · filed 2023-04-26(4)(C)

The court may reverse or modify an agency's decision if it violates a constitutional or statutory provision, exceeds the agency's authority, is procedurally unlawful, is affected by bias or error of law, is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, or is arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion. 5 M.R.S. § ll007(4)(C). ... The record in this case does not compel such a finding.

Section 11007(4)(C) limits when a court may overturn an agency decision, including for legal error, abuse of discretion, arbitrary or capricious action, or lack of record support.

Swan v. Camuso · filed 2024-02-06(4)(C)

The court is not permitted to overturn an agency’s decision “unless it: violates the Constitution or statutes; exceeds the agency’s authority; is procedurally unlawful; is arbitrary or capricious; constitutes an abuse of discretion; is affected by bias or error of law; or is unsupported by the evidence in the record.” Kroger v. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 2005 ME 50, § 7, 870 A.2d 566; 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C).

Section 11007(4) permits a court to affirm, remand, reverse, or modify an agency decision; a judgment denying an appeal can be treated as an affirmance.

Roy v. Maine Employment Security Commission · filed 1982-02-11(4)

The Administrative Procedure Act does not provide for the denial of appeals. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4) states in pertinent part: “[t]he court may ... A. Affirm the decision ... B. Remand the case ... or C. Reverse or modify the decision....” Although the Superior Court judgment does not strictly accord with the provisions of Title 5, we interpret the “denial” of the claimant’s appeal to be an affirmance of the decision of the Employment Security Commission.

Section 11007(4)(B) allows remand to the agency for further findings or conclusions when the record is insufficient for judicial review.

Carl L. Cutler Co. v. State Purchasing Agent · filed 1984-02-27(4)(B)

The remedy available to the court when the record is insufficient for judicial review is a remand to the agency for further findings or conclusions. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(B).

Section 11007(4)(C) allows a court to reverse an agency-issued permit after a timely challenge, so issuance alone does not give the permit holder a vested right to retain it.

Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. State of Maine, Dep't of Envtl. Prot. · filed 2000-08-04(4)(C)

This, of course, would debase the statutory process specifically designed to allow the challenge to the issuance of a permit by an agency, 5 M.R.S.A. §§ 11001-11008, which, if successful, may result in a reversal of the agency action, including the issuance of a permit. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4))C). From this, the conclusion is unmistakable that the intervenor had no vested rights in the permit issued to him simply by virtue of its issuance because it was challenged in a timely and procedurally correct fashion.

Section 11007(4)(B) provides for remand for further agency findings or conclusions when the record is insufficient for judicial review.

Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. LaPointe · filed 2004-06-14(4)(B)

The remedy available to the Court when the record is insufficient for judicial review is a remand to the agency for further findings or conclusions. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(B). ... The Court finds that the administrative record is sufficient for review and that additional evidence is not necessary for deciding this petition.

Section 11007(4)(C) provides for vacating and remanding an administrative decision affected by bias.

Moore, Inc. v. City of Westbrook · filed 2009-10-08(4)(C)

Under Maine's APA when a decision is affected by bias the decision is vacated and remanded. Kroeger v. Dep't of Ellvtl. Prot., 2005 ME 50, en 7, 870 A.2d 566, 569 citing 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C).

Section 11007(4)(B) allows the Superior Court to remand an agency case for further proceedings or findings when the record is inadequate for review.

Herrington v. Maine Bd. of Licensure in Med. · filed 2011-11-09(4)(B)

Under 5 M.R.S.A. § 11 007(4)(B), the Superior Court has the ability to "[r]emand the case for further proceedings, findings of fact or conclusions of law or direct the ... agency to hold such proceedings or take such action as the court deems necessary." Having determined that the Letter of Guidance essentially functions as an appealable sanction, the Court finds that the Board record in support of the Letter is inadequate to affirm, reverse, or modify the decision as provided for in 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(A), (C).

Section 11007(4)(B) permits a court to remand an agency decision for further proceedings or direct the agency to take necessary action.

The Cedars v. DHHS · filed 2016-07-11(4)(B)

The court may also remand the case for further proceedings, findings of fact or conclusions of law, or direct the agency to hold such proceedings or take such action as the court deems necessary.

Section 11007 permits a court to vacate a decision and remand for further proceedings when it finds an error of law.

Mills v. Town of Bar Harbor · filed 2019-11-27

The record demonstrates that the Board did not assess Ms. Mills' application according to these requirements; this mistake constitutes an error of law and therefore, the court vacates the Board's decision and remands the matter back to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 5 M.R.S. § 11007.

Section 11007(4)'s remedies do not limit the additional relief available under section 11001(2) when an agency fails to act.

Machiavelli v. Maine Department of Corrections · filed 2020-12-16(4)

The relief outlined in 5 M.R.S. § 11001(2) does not serve to limit the remedies available under the Administrative Procedures Act, but instead provides an additional remedy not specifically addressed in 5 M.R.S. §§ 11007(4)(A)-(C).

Section 11007(4)(B) permits a reviewing court to remand an agency matter for additional factual findings.

Smith v. Secretary of State · filed 2021-05-25(4)(B)

Because of the presence of the probable cause affidavit in comparison to the unique manner in which the testimony unfolded before the hearing officer before she made her ruling on the record, the Court remands the matter to the hearing officer to make additional findings of fact regarding the presence or absence of the smell of alcohol. See 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(B).

Section 11007 generally governs judicial review of final agency action, but its provisions yield to the specific rules for reviewing agency rules in section 8058.

Cumberland Farms Northern, Inc. v. Maine Milk Commission · filed 1981-04-23

Although Order 80-6 would also qualify as “final agency action” under section 11007, the general provisions of that section must yield to the more specific provisions of section 8058 by application of the normal constructional preference that gives controlling force to specific statutory provisions over general ones.

Section 11007 governs judicial review of final agency action; agency rules are reviewed under section 8058.

Normand v. Baxter State Park Authority · filed 1986-05-06

The Superior Court erroneously stated that its review of Rule 19 was pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007 (1979), which governs judicial review of final agency action. Agency rules, however, are to be reviewed pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 8058 (1979 & Supp.1985-1986).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency's on questions of fact.

Karkos v. Maine State Bureau of Identification, Sex Offender Registry · filed 2017-05-30(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

Horton v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission · filed 2018-01-08(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

Trask v. Fraternal Order of Police · filed 2018-01-30(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) prohibits a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

Reis v. Secretary of State · filed 2018-10-24(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) prohibits a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

Robbins v. Secretary of State · filed 2019-02-12(3)

However, even if it were inclined to, this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. See 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency’s on questions of fact.

Gervais v. Maine Public Employees Retirement Systems · filed 2020-01-08(3)

The agency, in this case the Board of Trustees through the Hearing Officer, is authorized to decide the weight to be given to any evidence and the court is forbidden from substituting its judgment for that of the Board's.

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency’s on questions of fact.

Narowetz v. State of Maine Board of Dental Practice · filed 2020-04-21(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact . 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

Faia v. Board of Trustees for the Maine Criminal Justice Academy · filed 2020-08-31(3)

Despite this, "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact." 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3). ... It was within the Board's purview to rely on the evidence it did to the exclusion of the evidence offered by Petitioner. Doing so was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 11007(3) prevents a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

Mendoza v. Maine Dep't of Corrections · filed 2021-03-09(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(1) requires the court to schedule briefs and oral argument when the proceeding reaches that stage, which in a tax review requiring a hearing de novo is after that hearing.

Leadbetter International Trucks, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor · filed 1984-11-14(1)

But this must be read to apply to that stage of the litigation when the time for filing briefs and for oral arguments has been reached, i.e., in the instant case, after the hearing de novo had been completed.

Section 11007(1)'s oral argument scheduling provision does not govern Rule 80C appeals; the court may decide whether to hold oral argument.

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

Rule 80C(c) of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure limits the manner and scope of review to that “provided by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(2) through section 11007(4).” The statutory provision Linde-mann invokes, 11007(1), is thus excluded from the Rule. To the extent that Rule 80C differs or conflicts with MAPA, the Rule governs the manner and scope of the court’s review of final agency action.

Section 11007(4)(C) allows a court to reverse or modify an agency ruling for a constitutional violation, but constitutional issues outside the agency hearing may be deemed waived.

Goodman v. State of Maine · filed 2005-03-17(4)(C)

While this Court can reverse or modify an agency ruling based on “violation of constitutional” provisions, 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C), as these issues were not properly before the Hearing Officer and were not relevant to the issues that were adjudicated, this Court deems them waived.

Section 11007(4) does not authorize relief for matters outside the agency decision under review.

Burr v. Department of Corrections · filed 2020-11-05(4)

Because only disciplinary segregation was at issue under Burr’s Rule 80C petition, the court’s restoration of good-time credit lost during nondisciplinary segregation could only have been granted as a remedy on the § 1983 claim.

Section 11007 permits constitutional challenges in judicial review of agency action.

Christian Action Network v. Maine · filed 2010-01-13(4)(C)(1)

There is no indication in the statute that Maine’s administrative procedures preclude consideration of constitutional issues; and even if officials here refused to rule on the constitutionality of the statute that they are charged to administer, judicial review of administrative proceedings — which does permit constitutional review — satisfies Younger’s requirement that state proceedings provide an opportunity to make constitutional arguments.

Section 11007(4) allows a reviewing court to resolve constitutional and procedural challenges to an agency decision and provides an exclusive remedy when that review is adequate.

Antler's Inn & Restaurant, LLC v. Department of Public Safety · filed 2012-12-28(4)

Each of the Inn’s section 1983 claims may therefore be resolved by the District Court pursuant to section 11007, and thus the Act’s process provides the exclusive remedy available to the Inn.