Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111, § 25G (2026)

Enforcement of Secs. 25C to 25G

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 25G. The superior and supreme judicial courts shall have jurisdiction, upon request of the department, the appropriate regional comprehensive health planning agency, or of any ten taxpayers in the commonwealth to enforce the provisions of sections twenty-five C to twenty-five G, inclusive. A violation of such provisions shall subject the violator to liability for a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars for each day of such violation, assessable by the superior court. Any violation of such provisions also shall constitute grounds for refusing to grant or renew, modifying or revoking the license of a health care facility or of any part thereof.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1978–2016 · leading case: Lahey Clinic Found., Inc. v. Health Facilities Appeals Bd., 380 N.E.2d 675 (Mass. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lahey Clinic Found., Inc. v. Health Facilities Appeals Bd., 380 N.E.2d 675 (Mass. 1978). “So far as *371 it sought direct review of the department’s decisions with respect to Lahey subsequent to the 1972 DoN, the counterclaim should have been dismissed. As the department stated in its notice of the 1976 "extension,” "in cases involving extension and/or revocation” of…”

Town of Brookline v. Med. Area Serv. Corp., 392 N.E.2d 1070 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). “The plaintiffs filed an action in the Superior Court pursuant to the provisions of G. L. c. 111, § 25G, 4 against MATEP, MASCO, MASCO’s members *245 (collectively referred to as the private defendants), the department and the Commissioner of Public Health (public defendants),…”

Murby v. Child.'s Hosp. Corp., 34 Mass. L. Rptr. 1 (Suffolk Mass. Super. Ct. 2016). “Plaintiffs also seek monetaiy penalties against the Hospital for this alleged violation under G.L.c. 111, §25G. As explained in prior decisions in this case, DPH expressly authorized the Hospital to begin working on the demolition of the Wolbach Building before obtaining DoN…”

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.