Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XX Chapter 143
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 143, § 10 (2026)

Remedy of person ordered to remove a dangerous structure or make it safe

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 10. An owner, lessee or mortgagee in possession aggrieved by such order may have the remedy prescribed by section two of chapter one hundred and thirty-nine; provided, that no provision of said section two shall be construed so as to hinder, delay or prevent the local inspector acting and proceeding under section nine; and provided, further, that this section shall not prevent the city or town from recovering the forfeiture provided in said section nine from the date of the service of the original notice, unless the order is annulled by the jury.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1931–2019 · leading case: Gallant v. City of Fitchburg, 739 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D. Mass. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gallant v. City of Fitchburg, 739 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D. Mass. 2010). · cites it 6× “Mass Gen. L. ch. 143, § 10. A property owner is afforded three days after service of such an order to commence an action in Massachusetts Superior Court.”
South Commons Condo. Ass'n v. Charlie Arment Trucking, Inc., 775 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2014). “Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 143, § 10 . 10 . In their initial filings in the District Court, the owners claimed damages of $23 million.”
Vigorito v. City of Chelsea, 124 N.E.3d 699 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “139, § 2, and G. L. c. 143, § 10. 2 The city subsequently issued, on October 9, 2015, a board of survey report to the same seven parties, specifically enumerating the physical deficiencies of the structure.”
Burofsky v. Turner, 175 N.E. 90 (Mass. 1931). “139, § 2; see G. L. c. 143, § 10. A letter was in evidence, dated February 1, 1929, from the defendant, by his attorney, to the plaintiff, stating that the defendant ■had received notice “ under proceedings by the authorities ” that the building had been “ condemned ” and that “…”
Aubuchon v. Massachusetts ex rel. State Bldg. Code Appeals Bd., 933 F. Supp. 90 (D. Mass. 1996). · cites it 3× “139, § 2 permit an aggrieved property owner to appeal an order to remove a dangerous structure to the Superior Court for a jury trial in which the jury may affirm, annul or alter the demolition order. If the jury annuls the demolition order, the successful plaintiff is entitled…”
Bryant v. City of Boston, 417 N.E.2d 30 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). “139, § 2, or G. L. c. 143, § 10. The validity of the city’s procedures must be tested by reference to the provisions of the building code, St.”
Aubuchon v. Mass. Build. Code Appels Bd., 933 F. Supp. 90 (D. Mass. 1996). · cites it 3× “139, § 2 permit an aggrieved property owner to appeal an order to remove a dangerous structure to the Superior Court for a jury trial in which the jury may affirm, annul or alter the demolition order. If the jury annuls the demolition order, the successful plaintiff is entitled…”
Berger v. City of Quincy, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 964 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982). “Nor is it apparent from the record, in view of the continued negotiations, that the February 25, 1975, order had to be appealed under G. L. c. 143, § 10, and G. L. c. 139, § 2.”
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.