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

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 118 (2026)

Temporary appellate relief from interlocutory orders; appeals to appeals court or supreme judicial court

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

Section 118. A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order of a trial court justice in the superior court department, the housing court department, the land court department, the juvenile court department or the probate and family court department may file, within thirty days of the entry of such order, a petition in the appropriate appellate court seeking relief from such order. A single justice of the appellate court may, in his discretion, grant the same relief as an appellate court is authorized to grant pending an appeal under section one hundred and seventeen. If the petition is filed with respect to a discovery order and is denied, the single justice may, after such hearing as the single justice in his discretion deems appropriate, require the petitioning party or the attorney advising the petition or both of them to pay to the party who opposed the petition the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the petition, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the filing of the petition was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order of a trial court justice in the superior court department, the housing court department, the land court department or the probate and family court department, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving a preliminary injunction, or refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunction, or a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order of a single justice of the appellate court granting a petition for relief from such an order, may appeal therefrom to the appeals court or, subject to the provisions of section ten of chapter two hundred and eleven A, to the supreme judicial court, which shall affirm, modify, vacate, set aside, reverse the order or remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate order as may be just under the circumstances. An appeal under this paragraph shall be taken within thirty days of the date of the entry of the interlocutory order and in accordance with the Massachusetts rules of appellate procedure. Pursuant to action taken by the appellate court the cause shall be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

The filing of a petition hereunder shall not suspend the execution of the order which is the subject of the petition, except as otherwise ordered by a single justice of the appellate court.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 499 cases (64 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: McMenimen v. Passatempo, 892 N.E.2d 287 (Mass. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McMenimen v. Passatempo, 892 N.E.2d 287 (Mass. 2008). · cites it 27× “Undeterred, McMenimen filed a petition in the Appeals Court on February 26, 2007, pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. He specifically indicated in his petition that the relief he was seeking was quite limited.”
Packaging Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Cheney, 405 N.E.2d 106 (Mass. 1980). · cites it 15× “Pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, second par., the plaintiffs appeal from this interlocutory order, arguing that the judge abused his discretion (1) in denying their request for a preliminary injunction, and (2) in refusing to hear certain additional testimony offered at the…”
Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Operation Rescue, 550 N.E.2d 1361 (Mass. 1990). · cites it 8× “[5] Forty of the sixty-nine defendants petitioned a single justice of the Appeals Court, seeking relief from the injunction pursuant to G.L.c. 231, § 118, first par. *706 (1988 ed.”
Aspinall v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 442 Mass. 381 (Mass. 2004). · cites it 4× “7 The defendants filed a petition under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., with a single justice of the Appeals Court, seeking interlocutory review of the certification order.”
Ashford v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 659 N.E.2d 273 (Mass. 1995). · cites it 12× “Relying on G. L. c. 231, § 118, first and second pars.”
DeLucia v. Kfoury, 100 N.E.3d 748 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 5× “The defendant in the present case sought, by special motion, to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, and then (after denial of his special motion) sought review of that denial by a single justice of this court by filing a petition under the first paragraph of G. L. c. 231, § 118.…”
Galipault v. Wash Rock Investments, LLC, 836 N.E.2d 1123 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 8× “496, § 2, and more especially the provisions for the expedited dissolution of an unjustified memorandum of lis pendens, for a special motion to dismiss, and for appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118. The plaintiffs contend that a Superior Court judge erred as a matter of law,…”
Gibbs Ford, Inc. v. United Truck Leasing Corp., 502 N.E.2d 508 (Mass. 1987). · cites it 9× “54 (b), a trial judge’s order dismissing some but not all counts in a complaint is interlocutory in nature, and therefore the single justice has authority to review the order and modify it pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. 3 The plaintiff, Gibbs Ford, Inc.”
Patel v. Martin, 111 N.E.3d 1082 (Mass. 2018). · cites it 5× “1403 (1996); or by petitioning for redress from a single justice of the Appeals Court under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. Although the appeal is not properly before us under the doctrine of present execution, we exercise our discretion under our superintendence authority to…”
Boston Herald, Inc. v. Sharpe, 28 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2569 (Mass. 2000). · cites it 5× “10 On July 26, 2000, Sharpe sought review of that order pursuant to Rule 12 of the Uniform Rules on Impoundment Procedure 11 and G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., 12 before a single justice of the Appeals Court.”
Edwin R. Sage Co. v. Foley, 421 N.E.2d 460 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). · cites it 5× “A single justice of this court, acting on Sage’s petition under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., modified the Superior Court’s order to enjoin the trustees “from renting or leasing any of the premises .”
Chace v. Curran, 881 N.E.2d 792 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “” A single justice of this court allowed the defendants to file interlocutory appeals pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118. Discussion. 4 In their underlying claims of malpractice against *261 Curran and Taylor, which were dismissed as untimely, the plaintiffs sought recovery for…”
Show all 499 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.