Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XVII Chapter 123
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, § 9 (2026)

Review of matters of law; application for discharge; notice; hearing

✓ current as of July 2026 Cite as: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, § 9 (2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 9. (a) Matters of law arising in commitment hearings, antipsychotic medication hearings or incompetency for trial proceedings in a district court may be reviewed by the appellate division of the district courts in the same manner as the civil cases generally.

(b) Any person may make written application to a justice of superior court at any time and in any county, stating that he believes or has reason to believe that a person named in such application is retained in a facility or the Bridgewater state hospital, who should no longer be so retained, or that a person named in such application is the subject of a medical treatment order issued by a district court or a division of the juvenile court department and should not be so treated, giving the names of all persons interested in his confinement or medical treatment and requesting his discharge or other relief. The justice within seven days thereof shall order notice of the time and place for hearing to be given to the superintendent or medical director and to such other persons as he considers proper; and such hearing shall be given promptly before a justice of the superior court in any county. The justice shall appoint an attorney to represent any applicant whom he finds to be indigent. The alleged mentally ill person may be brought before the justice at the hearing upon a writ of habeas corpus, upon a request approved by the justice. Pending the decision of the court such person may be retained in the custody of the superintendent or medical director. If the justice decides that the person is not mentally ill or that failure to retain the person in a facility or the Bridgewater state hospital would not create a likelihood of serious harm; has not engaged in repeated and recent incidents of serious self-destructive behavior or assaultive behavior as an inpatient at a facility or an inmate of a place of detention; can be properly treated in any other facility licensed, operated or regulated by the department, said person shall be discharged. If the justice decides that a patient at the Bridgewater state hospital does not require strict security, he shall be transferred to a facility. If the justice decides that a person who is the subject of a medical treatment order issued by a district court or a division of the juvenile court department pursuant to section eight B should not be treated, the justice shall issue an appropriate order modifying or vacating such order and, where such previous order is modified, the court shall monitor said modified order by means of a guardian or otherwise as provided in paragraph (e) of section eight B.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Andrews
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Andrews (2007) mass · cites it 9× “We now hold that an applicant in a proceeding under G. L. c. 123, § 9 (b), has the burden of proving his case by a fair preponderance of the evidence.”
Thompson v. Commonwealth (1982) mass · cites it 5× “The plaintiff, Fillmore Thompson, challenges the entry of a summary judgment dismissing his application filed pursuant to G. L. c. 123, §9 (b), for release from Bridgewater State Hospital.”
In re Chapman (2019) mass · cites it 3× “8 G. L. c. 123, § 9 ( b ). In contrast, an individual who is civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person is committed for an indeterminate period of from one day to life.”
Hashimi v. Kalil (1983) mass “On report to the Appellate Division of the District Courts under G. L. c. 123, § 9, the decision of the District Court was reversed and the petition for commitment was ordered dismissed.”
Temple v. Marlborough Division of the District Court Department (1985) mass · cites it 2× “He could have appealed his commitment under G. L. c. 123, § 9 (a) (1984 ed.), which provides: “Matters of law arising in commitment hearings or incompetency for trial proceedings in a district court may be reviewed by the appellate division of the district courts in the same…”
Pembroke Hospital v. D.L. (2019) mass “Under G. L. c. 123, § 9 ( b ), "[a]ny person" may also file a written application for a patient's discharge prior to the expiration of an order for commitment.”
Newton-Wellesley Hospital v. Magrini (2008) mass “Pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 9 (a), 1 Mag-rini appealed to the Appellate Division of the District Court Department (Appellate Division), where a divided panel entered a decision and order dismissing his appeal.”
Bradley v. Commissioner of Mental Health (1982) mass · cites it 2× “*364 G. L. c. 123, §9 (b). He has been a patient committed to Bridgewater pursuant to G.”
In re G.P. (2015) mass “With respect to the District Court, see G. L. c. 123, § 9 (a) (“Matters of law arising in commitment hearings .”
Department of Youth Services v. a Juvenile (1981) mass “119, § 61, G. L. c. 123, § 9, and G. L. c. 123A, § 6.”
Commonwealth v. Mazzarino (2012) massappct “” The judge responded that he would “stick with the truth” when admitting evidence pertaining to the G. L. c. 123, § 9, review process. The judge also ruled, over objection, that he would admit evidence of the victim impact statement.”
Fitzgerald v. District Court Department of the Trial Court (2015) mass · cites it 2× “If Fitzgerald wished to challenge that order, he could have sought review from the Appellate Division of the District Court pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 9 (a), or from a judge of the Superior Court pursuant to G.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, § 9(a) — 6 cases
In re Laura L. (2002) massappct
Scheibel v. Cohen (2004) massdistctapp
MacK v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2002) mad
Medfield State Hospital v. Makarevich (1988) massdistctapp
In re Magrini (2007) massdistctapp
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, § 9(b) — 3 cases
Scheibel v. Cohen (2004) massdistctapp
Hashimi v. Kalil (1982) massdistctapp
Commonwealth v. Batchelder (1997) massdistctapp
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.