Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 110 (2026)

Powers of appellate division

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 110. The appellate division of each district court shall have the powers of amendment of the trial court; shall have discretionary power to take further testimony and to render a decision based on such testimony; to decide issues of fact dependent upon issues of law or to direct a trial of such fact issues by a justice of the district court; to draw inferences from cases stated by agreement of the parties; and to render decision according to the justice of the case.

No new trial shall be granted in any civil action or proceeding in any district court on the ground of improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading or procedure if the appellate division deems that the error complained of has not injuriously affected the substantial rights of the parties; and, if it appears to the appellate division that said error affects part only of the matter in controversy or some or only one of the parties, the court may direct final judgment as to part thereof, or some or one only of the parties, and may direct a new trial as to the other part only or as to the other parties.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases, 1923–2013 · leading case: Bushnell v. Bushnell, 472 N.E.2d 240 (Mass. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bushnell v. Bushnell, 472 N.E.2d 240 (Mass. 1984). “” 28 Since we find that the Appellate Division exceeded its power of review by considering the validity of the marriage, we find it unnecessary to discuss the plaintiff’s contention that the Appellate Division’s ruling on this issue was unsupported by factual findings in the…”

Tri-City Concrete Co. Inc. v. ALA Constr. Co., 179 N.E.2d 319 (Mass. 1962). “G. L. c. 231, §§ 110,124. The letter of April 27, 1956, does not mention the terms contained in the “sales memo.”

McDonough v. Ferrari Pool 'N Patio, Inc., 2000 Mass. App. Div. 100 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2000). “An examination of the McDonoughs’ attorney’s bills submitted by way of affidavit in connec *102 tion with the plaintiffs’ request for reasonable attorneys’ fees, including the cost of depositions and experts, shows a total amount of $16,091.”

Cambridge YWCA v. Franks, 1998 Mass. App. Div. 242 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1998). “G.L.c. 231, §110. 5. Finally, the Landlord claims that the evidence was insufficient to support either the judge’s finding of single damages for the breach of the warranty of habitability which formed the basis of the Tenant’s G.”

First East Sav. Bank v. Bean, 1982 Mass. App. Div. 301 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1982). “However, to cany out our mandate under G.L. c. 231, § 110 as amended by St. 1973, c.”

Vrusho v. Vrusho, 154 N.E. 843 (Mass. 1927). “G. L. c. 231, § 110, as amended by St. 1922, c.”

Duco Enter., Inc. v. Abdelnour, 1994 Mass. App. Div. 103 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1994). “In the interests of justice, G.L.c. 231, §110, and on the basis of the compelling, substantive claims and fundamental interests presented, we have considered this appeal on its merits.”

Perrault v. Espinal, 2000 Mass. App. Div. 42 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2000). “G.L.c. 231, §110; Mass. R. Civ. P., Rule 61.”

Lincoln Park Garage v. Devonshire Fin. Serv. Corp., 178 N.E. 739 (Mass. 1931). “G. L. c. 231, §§ 110, 124. Such order is Affirmed.”

B. D. Nims Lumber Co. v. Phetterplace, 40 Mass. App. Dec. 45 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1968). “With this contention, we agree and feel that the failure of the trial judge to allow the defendant’s requests for rulings No. 3 and 4 constituted prejudicial error.”

Del Solia v. Campbell Sales Co., 59 Mass. App. Dec. 99 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1976). “Therefore, pursuant to G.L.c. 231, §110 as amended by St. 1973, c.”

Messier v. Kloc, 1992 Mass. App. Div. 15 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1992). “He asks that we exercise discretionary authority granted to the Appellate Division in accordance with G.L.c. 231, §110. However, we decline to do so.”

Show all 41 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.