Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223, § 15 (2026)

Erroneous venue; procedure

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 15. If an error in venue is discovered at any stage of the proceedings of a civil action in the supreme judicial or superior court, the court may, upon motion of either party, order the action, with all papers relating thereto, to be removed to the proper county upon terms to the defendant; and it shall thereupon be entered and prosecuted in the same court for that county as if it had been originally commenced therein, and all prior proceedings otherwise regularly taken shall be valid.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Cormier v. Pezrow New England, Inc., 437 Mass. 302 (Mass. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cormier v. Pezrow New England, Inc., 437 Mass. 302 (Mass. 2002). “See G. L. c. 223, § 15 (“If an error in venue is discovered at any stage of the proceedings of a civil action in the .”

Commonwealth v. Duteau, 424 N.E.2d 1119 (Mass. 1981). “400, § 56; G. L. c. 223, § 15.) We point out, however, that the amendment seems only to transfer Athol to Franklin County for the litigation of criminal and civil cases.”

Tighe v. Rivera, 1981 Mass. App. Div. 31 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1981). · cites it 3× “Said statute was never made applicable to the District Court Department.”

Mcr Labs, LLC v. Analytics Labs, LLC & Others (Mass. Super. Ct. 2025). “See G. L. c. 223, § 15 (“If an error in venue is discovered .”

Ferris v. Commonwealth, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 554 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2006). “See G.L.c. 223, §15 (authorizing the removal of cases from the supreme judicial court or the superior court to correct an error in the proper venue).”

Statewide Sec. Prot., Inc. v. Harris, 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 412 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2007). “As the Court advised counsel at argument, if it were to conclude that venue in Suffolk was improper, it would not dismiss the case at this stage, but would instead transfer it to Worcester pursuant to G.L.c. 223, §15. he Massachusetts General Laws Annotated indicates that 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.