Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 15, § 1J (2026)

Judicial review of board's recommendations or revised plans; jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 1J. Within thirty days after (1) a school committee or regional district school committee declines to accept the recommendations made to it by the board of education, in this section called the board, (2) the board disapproves a revised plan filed with it by a school committee or regional district school committee, or (3) the board orders that its recommendations shall be the mandatory plan to be implemented by a school committee or regional district school committee, such school committee or regional district school committee may file a petition for judicial review in the superior court for the county in which it is located or in the supreme judicial court for Suffolk county. The court may affirm such recommendations, disapproval, or order of the board and require compliance with such mandatory plan by appropriate order; or, if it finds and rules that such recommendations, disapproval, or order is (a) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the board, (b) based upon an error of law, or (c) arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, then it may set aside such recommendations, disapproval, or order and remand the matter to the board for further action.

The supreme judicial and the superior court shall have jurisdiction in equity upon petition of the board of education to order funds withheld as provided in section one I for such period of time as the court may determine.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1967–1977 · leading case: Sch. Comm. of Springfield v. Bd. of Educ., 287 N.E.2d 438 (Mass. 1972).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sch. Comm. of Springfield v. Bd. of Educ., 287 N.E.2d 438 (Mass. 1972). · cites it 6× “12 Initially, the commissioner withheld State school assistance from Springfield on the ground that the city had not demonstrated an “unqualified” commitment to implement its third racial balance plan. It appears from the record, however, that, on January 26, 1971, the board…”

Sch. Comm. of Boston v. Bd. of Educ., 227 N.E.2d 729 (Mass. 1967). · cites it 2× “(G. L. c. 15, § 1J.) We summarize pertinent events in Boston beginning in October, 1965.”

Sch. Comm. of Hatfield v. Bd. of Educ., 363 N.E.2d 237 (Mass. 1977). “The plaintiffs also seek judicial review under G. L. c. 15, § 1J. That statute is clearly inapposite to the case now before us, because it applies only to judicial review of racial imbalance plans.”

Sch. Comm. of Springfield v. Bd. of Educ., 319 N.E.2d 427 (Mass. 1974). · cites it 2× “The school committee then brought a bill for judicial review of the board's actions (G.L.c. 15, § 1J). In Springfield I, 362 Mass.”

Sch. Comm. of Boston v. Bd. of Educ., 292 N.E.2d 870 (Mass. 1973). “G. L. c. 15, § 1J. Traditionally, this sort of judicial review of an administrative determination takes place on the basis of an administrative record.”

Sch. Comm. of Boston v. Bd. of Educ., 302 N.E.2d 916 (Mass. 1973). “1 Although the Board employed the word “Order,” its function under G. L. c. 15, § 1J, is to submit recommendations which are subject to affirmance or disaffirmance by the court.”

Sch. Comm. of Springfield v. Bd. of Educ., 311 N.E.2d 69 (Mass. 1974). “The school committee on November 12,1973, filed a bill for judicial review (G. L. c. 15, § 1J, and c. 30A, § 14), declaratory relief (G.”

Bd. of Educ. v. Sch. Comm. of Springfield, 345 N.E.2d 345 (Mass. 1976). “We think the State Board has a superintendency and responsibility here; 27 further, we think the court, when subjecting a plan *61 to judicial review, could, in an extreme case, find a plan “arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with…”

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.