Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211A, § 3 (2026)

Quorum; panels; presiding justice

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 3. Three justices shall constitute a quorum to decide all matters required to be heard by the appeals court or, upon order of the chief justice, four or more justices may sit. The court may sit in panels of three or more justices. The chief justice, insofar as practicable, shall assign justices to panels in such manner that each justice shall sit a substantially equal number of times with each other justice. The chief justice shall preside over any panel on which he shall sit, or, if the chief justice is not a member of a panel, the senior justice shall be the presiding justice.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1977–1980 · leading case: Albano v. Bonanza Int'l Dev. Co., 369 N.E.2d 473 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Albano v. Bonanza Int'l Dev. Co., 369 N.E.2d 473 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977). “See G. L. c. 211A, § 3. A single justice of this court is without power to allow a motion to dismiss an appeal.”

Katz v. Savitsky, 413 N.E.2d 354 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). “4 Which we take to mean a panel comprised of at least three Justices of the court, as contemplated by G. L. c. 211A, § 3. 5 The plaintiff”s appeal from the final judgment in this case has been dismissed for lack of prosecution.”

Boston Seaman's Friend Soc'y, Inc. v. Attorney Gen., 398 N.E.2d 721 (Mass. 1980). “G. L. c. 211A, § 3. The 1979 amendment is inapplicable to the appeal in this case because the notice of appeal was filed in June of 1978.”

Pemberton v. Pemberton, 411 N.E.2d 1303 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). “” G. L. c. 211A, § 3. A single justice may “not .”

Schwartz v. Bressler, 360 N.E.2d 910 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977). “Quite obviously, the order of the panel was an order of the court (G. L. c. 211A, § 3, inserted by St. 1972, c.”

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.