Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title II Chapter 231
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 104 (2026)

Removal from district court to superior court

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 104. Any other party, a plaintiff against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is brought, and a defendant who asserts a compulsory counterclaim, may, provided that the amount of the claim against such other party, the amount of the claim, counterclaim or cross-claim brought against such plaintiff, or the amount of the compulsory counterclaim asserted by such defendant, as the case may be, exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars, file in the district court in which the action is pending a claim of trial by the superior court together with the fee for the entry of the claim of each plaintiff in the superior court, and, except as provided in section one hundred and seven, a bond in the penal sum of one hundred dollars, with such surety or sureties as may be approved by the party or parties not asserting such claim of trial by the superior court or by the clerk or an assistant clerk of said district court, payable to the other party or parties, conditioned to satisfy any judgment for costs which may be entered against him in the superior court in said cause within thirty days after the entry thereof. Such claim of trial by the superior court must be filed no later than twenty-five days after service of the pleading which asserts the claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim on which the right to remove is based, provided, however, that in the case of a compulsory counterclaim, the party asserting such counterclaim must file such claim of trial by the superior court no later than five days after the expiration of the time allowed to assert such counterclaim. The clerk shall forthwith transmit the papers and entry fee to the clerk of the superior court and the same shall proceed as though then originally entered there.

Removal of a case under this section shall remove any default and vacate any judgment entered thereon for failure to plead or otherwise defend in the district court, excepting cases in which the amount of the claim does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars. Cases in which no claims, counterclaims and cross-claims exceed twenty-five thousand dollars and those in which rights of parties to remove for trial in the superior court as provided herein and in section one hundred and three are not properly exercised shall be tried in the district court. A party who would have been entitled to remove the case for trial in the superior court as hereinabove provided but for the fact that the amount of the claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim, as the case may be, does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars shall, if he desires trial by the superior court, file an entry fee of fifty dollars and bond within thirty days after notice of the decision or finding. Such filing shall have the same effect as a request for retransfer under section one hundred and two C, and the decision shall be transmitted to and the case tried in the superior court subject to the provisions of said section one hundred and two C applicable to retransferred cases.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 115 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1925–2022 · leading case: Coen Marine Equip., Inc. v. Kurker, 467 N.E.2d 178 (Mass. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Coen Marine Equip., Inc. v. Kurker, 467 N.E.2d 178 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 8× “The defendant, Edward Kurker, doing business as Hyannis Marine Service, appeals from a decision of the Appellate Division of the District Courts, Southern District, denying his petition to establish a report challenging the denial of his motions for removal of the case to the…”
Orasz v. Colonial Tavern, Inc., 310 N.E.2d 311 (Mass. 1974). · cites it 8× “The question presented for our decision by all three cases now before us is whether the defendant is entitled to remove the tort action to the Superior Court for trial de nova under G. L. c. 231, § 104, as amended by St. 1965, c.”
Crystal Constr. Corp. v. Hartigan, 778 N.E.2d 915 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 4× “The decision affirmed the denial by a District Court judge of their motion for “removal/appeal” of the case to the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 104, following a nonjury trial in the District Court.”
Greenhouse, Inc. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 474 N.E.2d 177 (Mass. 1985). · cites it 6× “TWA claimed a report to the Appellate Division of the Boston Municipal Court.”
O'Brion, Russell & Co. v. LeMay, 346 N.E.2d 861 (Mass. 1976). · cites it 2× “377, §§ 102, 102A, the plaintiff’s affidavit, incorporating the decision of the Municipal Court and the amount of damages assessed, is “prima facie evidence upon such matters as are put in issue by the pleadings”; (2) the defendant’s first affidavit, that he “can prove” that he…”
Gonzalez v. Spates, 766 N.E.2d 77 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 5× “More than thirty days after receiving a copy of the District Court judge’s “findings and rulings of the court” but fewer than thirty days after receiving notice of the entry of judgment, Spates filed a motion to remove the case to Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 104.…”
Fascione v. CNA Ins. Companies, 754 N.E.2d 662 (Mass. 2001). “CNA removed the case to the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 104. Each party filed cross motions for summary judgment.”
Kolakowski v. Finney, 471 N.E.2d 99 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 4× “” Before we address the buyer’s substantive contentions, we briefly consider whether the buyer has a right of appeal to this court.”
Hanlon v. Floridia, 1994 Mass. App. Div. 98 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1994). · cites it 7× “In August, 1993, the defendants filed a motion to remove the case to the Superior Court pursuant to G.L.c. 231, §104 on the stated grounds that: (1) based on a recent report of the plaintiff’s injuries from her physician, it was apparent that any recovery by the plaintiff would…”
Fishman v. Paramount Cleaners & Dyers of Brockton, Inc., 2003 Mass. App. Div. 33 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2003). · cites it 5× “Paramount argues in essence that it — more accurately, its counsel — could not have timely sought removal because counsel received the file only in late September 1999, well after the 25-day deadline.”
Paro v. Longwood Hosp., 369 N.E.2d 985 (Mass. 1977). “We have previously upheld the constitutional validity of G. L. c. 231, § 104, which requires a defendant to post a bond of one hundred dollars as a condition for exercising his right to remove a District *655 Court action to the Superior Court in order to obtain a jury trial.”
Borne v. Haverhill Golf & Country Club, Inc., 791 N.E.2d 903 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003). “231, § 98 (appeals from District Court judgment); G. L. c. 231, § 104 (removal from District Court to Superior Court); G.”
Show all 115 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.