Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223, § 84 (2026)

Insufficient service of process; dismissal of action or further service

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 84. If in a civil action the defendant makes a motion to dismiss the action for insufficient service of process, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice or may quash the process and allow the issuance and service of new process in accordance with the applicable rules of court.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1923–2018 · leading case: Rosenblatt v. Foley, 252 Mass. 188 (Mass. 1925).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rosenblatt v. Foley, 252 Mass. 188 (Mass. 1925). “The writ had not even been placed in the hands of an officer for service when the order of notice was issued, supposedly under G. L. c. 223, § 84. An action is commenced when a writ issues out and is delivered to an officer with a bona fide intent to have it served upon the…”

Gifford v. Spehr, 266 N.E.2d 657 (Mass. 1971). “199) that no discretionary supplementary process could be issued under G. L. c. 223, § 84, 2 because § 3C (1) was the “exclusive procedure for .”

Nickerson v. Fales, 172 N.E.2d 832 (Mass. 1961). “His contention that jurisdiction over the defendants was acquired rests on the grounds (1) that the court had power to issue the orders of notice of May 16,1957, under G. L. c. 223, § 84, and (2) that the defendants by various steps taken in the case, and, especially, by…”

Siodis v. Spate, 1999 Mass. App. Div. 148 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1999). “3 The same alternatives are specifically provided by G.L.c. 223, §84. The statute states: If in a civil action the defendant makes a motion to dismiss the action for insufficient service of process, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice or may quash the process and…”

Crete v. Audet, 234 N.E.2d 733 (Mass. 1968). “that notice be given “forthwith” to the defendants by registered mail; and that (pp.”

H. B. Smith Co. v. Judge of Third Dist. Court, 246 Mass. 190 (Mass. 1923). “The debtor is not aided in this particular by G. L. c. 223, § 84, respecting supplementary process.”

Hanson v. Venditelli, 712 N.E.2d 1212 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999). “Fales, 342 Mass, at 199, the court viewed § 3C as providing “the exclusive procedure for notice,” and held that G. L. c. 223, § 84, which gives discretionary power to a judge to allow the service of new process where there is insufficient service of process, could not be used…”

Salifu v. Ward, 1998 Mass. App. Div. 273 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1998). “With specific reference to service of process, G.L.c. 223, §84 provides: If in a civil action the defendant makes a motion to dismiss the action for insufficient service of process, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice or may quash the process and allow the…”

Crossetti v. Cargill, Inc. (D. Mass. 2018). “Second, Plaintiff cites Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223, § 84 , which provides that, “[i]f in a civil action the defendant makes a motion to dismiss the action for insufficient service of process, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice or may quash the process and allow the…”

Union Prods. Inc. v. Warner 7 Stackpole, L.L.P., 18 Mass. L. Rptr. 624 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2004). “See also G.L.c. 223, §84; G.L.c. 231, §51. The defendants have not demonstrated that they have suffered any material prejudice as a result of the defects in the service that was made, and thus their motions to dismiss are denied.”

Huggins v. Santos, 2009 Mass. App. Div. 101 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2009). “4 See G.L.c. 223, §84. No service of process was attempted in response to that order.”

Christopher v. Dixon, 2014 Mass. App. Div. 166 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2014). “See also Mass. Gen. L. c. 223, section 84. The trial judge did not, under the factual circumstances of this case, abuse his broad discretion in denying the Dixons’ motion dismiss.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

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.