Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 161A, § 21 (2026)

Allocation of annual revenues in excess of expenses

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 21. Annual revenues in excess of expenses shall be allocated in the following order:

(a) to fully fund all debt service reserves required under the trust agreements of any bonds of the authority then outstanding, and to fund in advance the debt service reserve requirements of any bond issuances planned for the upcoming fiscal year, in each case to the extent required by an applicable bond resolution or trust agreement securing bonds of the authority;

(b) to fund the Stabilization Fund established pursuant to the first paragraph of section 19;

(c) 50 per cent of any revenues in excess of expenses remaining after all debt service reserve requirement and the Stabilization Fund are fully funded shall be deposited in the Fare Stability Fund established pursuant to the second paragraph of section 19;

(d) 50 per cent of any revenues in excess of expenses remaining after all debt service reserve requirement and the Stabilization Fund are fully funded shall pay for capital improvements in lieu of bond proceeds or be applied to the retirement of outstanding bonds.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2022 · leading case: Mirageas v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 465 N.E.2d 232 (Mass. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mirageas v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 465 N.E.2d 232 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 5× “The MBTA argues that under G. L. c. 161A, § 21, it was error for the trial judge to enter judgment for Mira-geas.”

O'BRIEN v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 541 N.E.2d 334 (Mass. 1989). · cites it 2× “The MBTA moved to dismiss the claim on the ground that it is barred *440 by G. L. c. 161A, § 21 (1986 ed.), the two-year statute of limitations applicable to tort claims against the MBTA.”

Thomas v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 450 N.E.2d 600 (Mass. 1983). · cites it 3× “This case raises the question whether G. L. c. 161A, § 21, 1 the statute of limitations applicable to actions against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), controls the time frame for commencement of actions of contract for personal injuries against the MBTA.”

Smith v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 968 N.E.2d 884 (Mass. 2012). “Such consent was first given, on the MBTA’s creation, by G. L. c. 161A, § 21, inserted by St. 1964, c.”

Lijoi v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 548 N.E.2d 893 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990). · cites it 2× “The MBTA moved for summary judgment on the ground that the applicable two-year statute of limitations, G. L. c. 161A, § 21 (MBTA tort statute, see O’Brien v.”

Lavecchia v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 804 N.E.2d 932 (Mass. 2004). · cites it 2× “” When this action was filed in 1997, the two-year statute of limitations was codified at G. L. c. 161A, § 21, inserted by St. 1964, c.”

Hearn v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 450 N.E.2d 602 (Mass. 1983). · cites it 2× “We are asked to declare that the two-year statute of limitations (G. L. c. 161A, § 21 1 ) governing ac *405 tians for death, personal injury, or property damage against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is unenforceable.”

Clifton v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 316 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2000). · cites it 3× “This Court does not find that G.L.c. 161A, §21 constitutes express statutory authority for the imposition of interest on the damage award.”

Lavecchia v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 792 N.E.2d 687 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 3× “231, § 104, the MBTA obtained a transfer of the case for trial in the Superior Court. Acting on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, the Superior Court judge allowed the MBTA’s motion, ruling that the two-year statute of limitations in G.”

Craig Harrison & Another v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth.., 101 Mass. App. Ct. 659 (Mass. App. Ct. 2022). “563, § 21, and codified at G. L. c. 161A, § 21, [Note 4] with an eye toward allowing "the public to retain the right to bring tort actions against the MBTA to the extent that such a right previously had been available against private railway and streetcar companies.”

Chipman v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 316 N.E.2d 725 (Mass. 1974). “G. L. c. 161A, § 21. 6 The information relative to regulations issued by the Commissioner of Insurance is taken from an amicus curiae brief submitted, at our request, by the Commissioner and the Attorney General.”

Maltz v. Smith Barney, Inc., 427 Mass. 560 (Mass. 1998). “AppeHate decisions in this Commonwealth have not been entirely consistent in interpreting this language where the Emitation is imposed in another statute. See O’Brien v.”

Show all 25 citing cases →

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.