A recent decision in the Business and Consumer Docket reminds us of a quirk in Maine law. In Harold MacQuinn, Inc. v. LaMoine, the Court stayed proceedings in a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance, on the ground that the plaintiff had not served the Attorney General with a copy of the complaint. (Order Staying Proceedings to Allow Attorney General an Opportunity to Respond)
As Justice Mulhern noted, this requirement is included in the Declaratory Judgment Act, 14 M.R.S. s. 5963. It must be done or the complaint should be dismissed, as the Law Court noted in Ferraiolo Constr. Co. v. Town of Woolwich, 1998 ME 179. Yet, as the decision in Ferraiolo and the other citations in MacQuinn suggest, this requirement is honored more in the breach.
Here is my question for the day: does it make sense to have