Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 221, § 72 (2026)

Tenure

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 72. Officers appointed as court officers to attend upon the sessions of the supreme judicial, appeals or superior court in any county, including chief deputies, assistant chief deputies and all chief court officers designated under section seventy-one, shall hold office during good behavior and until they are removed by the court administrator or, with respect to court officers of the supreme judicial court and the appeals court, their respective chief justices, for cause.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1967–2014 · leading case: Tobin v. Sheriff of Suffolk Cnty., 385 N.E.2d 972 (Mass. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tobin v. Sheriff of Suffolk Cnty., 385 N.E.2d 972 (Mass. 1979). · cites it 10× “3 The trial judge ruled that the attempted suspension of the plaintiff was tantamount to his removal from office and that, under G. L. c. 221, § 72, as then amended, a chief deputy could be removed from office by a sheriff only with the approval of the justices of the court to…”

McCarthy v. Sheriff of Suffolk Cnty., 322 N.E.2d 758 (Mass. 1975). · cites it 8× “Prior to the 1972 amendment, G.L.c. 221, § 72, provided that court officers were to be appointed to hold office during good behavior and were removable for cause.”

Chernick v. Chief Admin. Just. of the Trial Court, 480 N.E.2d 639 (Mass. 1985). · cites it 18× “The employment of court officers is also governed by G. L. c. 221, § 72, which provides in part that *485 no court officer “shall hold office .”

Bruno v. Chief Admin. Just. of Trial Court, 401 N.E.2d 849 (Mass. 1980). · cites it 4× “We hold that such court officers are subject to assignment under § 9 to the same extent as other nonjudicial personnel and that the defendant’s authority under § 9 is not limited by G. L. c. 221, § 72, as amended by § 252 of the Court Reorganization Act.”

Campatelli v. Chief Just. of Trial Court, 11 N.E.3d 115 (Mass. 2014). “212, 214 (1979) (considering G. L. c. 221, § 72), that fact says nothing about what the Legislature intended, in enacting § 4, with respect to who may exercise the power of suspension — especially where, as McGonigle, supra, states, § 4, by its terms, does not mention suspension…”

Burnside v. Bristol Cnty. Bd. of Ret., 226 N.E.2d 234 (Mass. 1967). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff also argues that G. L. c. 221, § 72, 2 prevents his retirement because his “removal must be approved by the Justices of the Superior Court; and, having failed to do so, the attempt to terminate the .”

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.