Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, § 12 (2026)

Summoning of jury

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 12. If there is no regular sitting of the supreme judicial court within three months after the framing of such issues, a justice thereof may order the clerk of the courts for the county in which the cause is pending to summon a jury to try such issues, and the proceedings at such trial shall be in all respects the same as in a trial at a regular sitting.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1924–1969 · leading case: Brest v. Comm'r of Ins., 169 N.E. 657 (Mass. 1930).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brest v. Comm'r of Ins., 169 N.E. 657 (Mass. 1930). “G. L. c. 214, § 12. The petition must contain allegations setting out with certainty, brevity and adequate degree of particularity the grounds upon which relief is sought.”

Meskell v. Meskell, 243 N.E.2d 804 (Mass. 1969). “G. L. c. 214, § 12. Carson v. Gikas, 321 Mass.”

Kilkus v. Shakman, 150 N.E. 186 (Mass. 1926). “The prayer for an accounting of the amount due to the plaintiff, together with the other prayers and the prayer for general relief, which the bill is to be interpreted as containing even though not inserted (G. L. c. 214, § 12. Allen v. French, 180 Mass.”

Comm'r of Banks v. Cosmopolitan Trust Co., 142 N.E. 100 (Mass. 1924). “The bill in this respect conforms to G. L. c. 214, § 12, by stating briefly the “ material facts and circumstances relied on ” and by omitting superfluous* matters.”

Knowlton v. Fourth-Atl. Nat'l Bank, 162 N.E. 356 (Mass. 1928). “G. L. c. 214, § 12. Kilkus v. Shakman, 254 Mass.”

Datz v. Keller, 196 N.E.2d 922 (Mass. 1964). “See G. L. c. 214, § 12. The personal cause of action grounded in the plaintiff’s right to inspect certain corporate documents under G.”

Taylor v. Neal, 157 N.E. 646 (Mass. 1927). · cites it 3× “remedy within The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, and in that no final adjudication or decision affecting the plaintiff’s rights has been made by the Christian Science Board of Directors; the bill does not state briefly the material facts and…”

Mahoney v. Houghton & Richards, Inc., 197 N.E.2d 191 (Mass. 1964). “The bill does not satisfy the requirement of G. L. c. 214, § 12, that “[t]he material facts and circumstances relied on by the plaintiff shall be stated briefly, and immaterial and irrelevant matters omitted.”

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.