Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 212, § 3 (2026)

Exclusive original jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026

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

[See Standing Order of the Supreme Court, dated July 17, 2019, effective January 1, 2020, and applicable to civil actions for money damages commenced on or after that date (MA R S CT SDG ORDERS Amount-in-Controversy) which increased the amount-in-controversy from $25,000 to $50,000.]

Section 3. The court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of civil actions for the foreclosure of mortgages, and of real and mixed actions, except those of which the land court or district courts have jurisdiction, of complaints for flowing lands, and of claims against the commonwealth. Except as otherwise provided by law, the court shall have original jurisdiction of civil actions for money damages. The actions may proceed in the court only if there is no reasonable likelihood that recovery by the plaintiff will be less than or equal to $25,000, or an amount ordered from time to time by the supreme judicial court. Where multiple damages are allowed by law, the amount of single damages claimed shall control.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1923–2026 · leading case: Zizza v. Zizza, 456 Mass. 401 (Mass. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Zizza v. Zizza, 456 Mass. 401 (Mass. 2010). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to G. L. c. 212, § 3, one of the one-trial system statutes, a Superior Court judge determined that damages on the legal claims were not likely to exceed the threshold amount of $25,000 and dismissed the complaint, notwithstanding the presence of the equity claim that…”

Toro v. CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc., 199 F. Supp. 3d 320 (D. Mass. 2016). · cites it 2× “218, § 19 (District Court); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 212, § 3 (Superior Court).”

Est. of Moulton v. Puopolo, 5 N.E.3d 908 (Mass. 2014). “See G. L. c. 212, § 3. Given our disposition of the case, we do not reach this claim.”

Minton Constr. Corp. v. Commonwealth, 494 N.E.2d 1031 (Mass. 1986). · cites it 2× “The Commonwealth argues first that, if it were required to comply with an arbitrator’s award made pursuant to a contract entered into by an agency of the Commonwealth, the statutory limitation on the scope of review of commercial arbitration decisions (see G.”

Taylor v. E. Connection Operating, Inc., 465 Mass. 191 (Mass. 2013). “See G. L. c. 212, §§ 3, 4. The question then becomes which State’s law the Superior Court should apply in deciding the plaintiffs’ claims.”

Skawski v. Greenfield Investors Prop. Dev. LLC, 45 N.E.3d 561 (Mass. 2016). “”); G. L. c. 212, § 3 (“The [superior] court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of civil actions for the foreclosure of mortgages .”

Gillespie v. City of Northampton, 460 Mass. 148 (Mass. 2011). “218, § 27, and all civil matters where the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000, G. L. c. 212, § 3, requires compliance with rigorous discovery and other rules.”

Irwin v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Youth Serv., 448 N.E.2d 721 (Mass. 1983). “See also G.L.c. 212, § 3, as amended by St. 1973, c.”

LBM Fin., LLC v. 201 Forest Street, LLC (In Re 201 Forest Street, LLC), 422 B.R. 888 (1st Cir. BAP 2010). “, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 212, § 3 ("The [Superior Court] shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of civil actions for the foreclosure of mortgages .”

Ritter v. Bergmann, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 296 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “” G. L. c. 212, § 3. “The divisions of the [Hjousing [Cjourt department shall have common law and statutory jurisdiction concurrent with the divisions of the.”

Feldman v. Aspen Tech., Inc., 22 Mass. L. Rptr. 341 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “” G.L.c. 212, §3. The defendants contend that Feldman could not have suffered any damage as a result of misstatements concerning Aspen’s financial condition because he was “in and out” of the stock before the alleged fraud could impact the market.”

Baker v. Langley, 141 N.E. 671 (Mass. 1923). “G. L. c. 212, § 3, c. 214, § 1. Phillips v.”

Show all 39 citing cases →

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 212, § 3(6) — 1 case

Halpern v. Paolini, 1992 Mass. App. Div. 8 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1992).

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.