Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 13, § 25 (2026)

Board of registration in pharmacy; agents; expenses; duties

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 25. The board shall appoint agents who shall be allowed necessary traveling expenses. They shall inspect drug stores and all other places of business wherein drugs, medicines, patent medicines, medical preparations and medical supplies of any kind are sold or distributed, and shall make a report of their doings pertaining thereto to the board, and shall report all violations of the laws relating to pharmacy and the retail drug business and all violations of the rules and regulations of the board. As directed by the board, they shall file criminal complaints against all violators of such laws, rules or regulations.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1982–1991 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Lipomi, 432 N.E.2d 86 (Mass. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Lipomi, 432 N.E.2d 86 (Mass. 1982). · cites it 36× “Second, it argues that LaBelle's audit was authorized by G.L.c. 13, § 25, independent of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the warrant, and that his testimony is admissible on that basis.”

Commonwealth v. Frodyma, 436 N.E.2d 925 (Mass. 1982). “8 Unlike the searches in Lipomi and Accaputo , the search in the case at bar was carried out by Agent LaBelle pursuant to the authority of G. L. c. 13, § 25. This fact does not, however, detract from the warrant pro *439 cedures and requirements for an administrative search of a…”

State v. Marsh, 823 P.2d 823 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). “On appeal, the Massáchúsetts court affirmed the decision of the trial court, saying: “The defendant argues that any authority to inspect granted by G.L. c. 13, § 25, is invalid, however, because the statute fails to impose appropriate limitations as to the time, place, and scope…”

Commonwealth v. Bizarria, 578 N.E.2d 424 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991). “370, 382 (1982), for a discussion of the similar shortcomings of G. L. c. 13, § 25, and Commonwealth v. Frodyma , 386 Mass, at 440, quoting from Commonwealth v.”

Perez v. State Racing Comm'n, 501 N.E.2d 1169 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986). “For that case, apparently on a full record of proceedings in the Superior Court and during the administrative search (at 371-372, 376-377, especially nn.3-5), the court (with two Justices dissenting) affirmed the suppression of items seized in the search.”

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.