Massachusetts General Laws
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 212, § 4 (2026)
Original jurisdiction
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MAmalegislature.gov (official)
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 4. The court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, except those of which other courts have exclusive original jurisdiction.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1932–2026 · leading case: Lowell Gas Co. v. Attorney Gen., 385 N.E.2d 240 (Mass. 1979).
Lowell Gas Co. v. Attorney Gen., 385 N.E.2d 240 (Mass. 1979). “G.L.c. 212, § 4. Cf. G.L.c. 93A, § 4. The companies also argue that the case must be dismissed on account of the Attorney General's failure to exhaust the appropriate administrative remedies.”
Commonwealth v. Cole, 10 N.E.3d 1081 (Mass. 2014). “211, § 3; G. L. c. 212, § 4; G. L. c. 231 A, § 6. There is no right to appointed counsel in such actions.”
Warner Ins. v. Comm'r of Ins., 548 N.E.2d 188 (Mass. 1990). “It exercises original jurisdiction over all civil actions, except those of which other courts have exclusive jurisdiction, G. L. c. 212, § 4, and shares general equity jurisdiction with this court pursuant to G.”
Third Nat'l Bank of Hampden Cnty. v. CONT. INS. CO, 446 N.E.2d 380 (Mass. 1983). “G. L. c. 212, § 4. A plaintiff’s right to a Superior Court jury trial in such an action provided by G.”
Locke v. Slater, 442 N.E.2d 732 (Mass. 1982). “231, § 97, is deemed waived, as provided by G. L.”
U.S. Funding, Inc. of Am. v. Bank of Boston Corp., 551 N.E.2d 922 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990). “See G. L. c. 212, § 4 (general jurisdiction of Superior Court); G.”
Waxman v. Waxman, 995 N.E.2d 1138 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013). “See G. L. c. 212, § 4; G. L. c. 214, § 1. Had Robert lived, the divorce proceeding would have progressed in the probate court to a distribution of property under the multiple criteria of G.”
Doe v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 979 N.E.2d 226 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012). “231 A, § 6 (declaratory judgment); G. L. c. 212, § 4 (equity); and G. L. c. 214, § IB (privacy).”
Bergeron v. Bergeron, 192 N.E. 86 (Mass. 1934). “G. L. c. 212, § 4; c. 214, § 1. Since for the purposes of this proceeding the petitioner and respondent must be regarded as validly married, the Probate Court would have had jurisdiction to enter a valid decree as to the custody of their child.”
Hood v. City of Boston, 891 F. Supp. 51 (D. Mass. 1995). “12, § 11(1), and M.G.L. c. 212, § 4), an amended complaint dropped references to the federal statutes and to M.”
Adams v. Silverman, 182 N.E. 1 (Mass. 1932). “(Compare G. L. c. 212, § 4, and G. L. c. 218, § 19, as most recently amended by St.”
Brady v. City Council, 797 N.E.2d 479 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003). “185, § 1; G. L. c. 212, § 4. Thus, the plaintiffs contend, the council had no business deciding whether the plaintiffs had an unfettered right to build their patio; that issue was for the cotenants to take up in court.”
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.