Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 119 (2026)

Harmless error; disposition of judgment on appeal

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 119. No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or anything done or omitted by the trial court or by any of the parties is ground for modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order unless the appeals court or the supreme judicial court deems that the error complained of has injuriously affected the substantial rights of the parties. If either court finds that the error complained of affects only one or some of the issues or parties involved it may affirm the judgment as to those issues or parties unaffected and may modify or reverse the judgment as to those affected.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 59 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1928–2026 · leading case: Irwin v. Town of Ware, 467 N.E.2d 1292 (Mass. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Irwin v. Town of Ware, 467 N.E.2d 1292 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 2× “See G.L.c. 231, § 119; Wingate v. Emery Air Freight Corp.”

Corsetti v. Stone Co., 483 N.E.2d 793 (Mass. 1985). · cites it 2× “There is no basis for the court's conclusion that a new trial is necessary.”

Fyffe v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 17 N.E.3d 453 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 3× “Application of the prejudicial error standard under G. L. c. 231, §§ 119, 132, requires us to undertake a case-by-case analysis.”

Wingate v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 432 N.E.2d 474 (Mass. 1982). · cites it 2× “In any event, there was no evidence that the plaintiff or anyone else with personal knowledge and a duty to report had relayed the information to the preparer of the record or to someone under a business duty to inform the preparer of the record, so that the intermediary's…”

DeJesus v. Yogel, 533 N.E.2d 1318 (Mass. 1989). · cites it 2× “" G.L.c. 231, §§ 119 and 132 (1986 ed.). [4] As will be seen from our discussion, the substantial rights of a party are adversely affected when relevant evidence is erroneously excluded that, viewing the record in a commonsense way, could have made a material difference.”

First Pennsylvania Mortg. Trust v. Dorchester Sav. Bank, 481 N.E.2d 1132 (Mass. 1985). “” G. L. c. 231, § 119 (1984 ed.). See G. L.”

Symmons v. O'Keeffe, 419 Mass. 288 (Mass. 1995). “” G. L. c. 231, § 119. Based on the record before us, additional discovery could not have created a material issue of fact sufficient to defeat the allowance of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment.”

Durbin v. Bd. of Selectmen, 814 N.E.2d 1121 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). “See G.L. c. 231, §§ 119, 132; Mass.R.Civ.P. 61, 365 Mass.”

Adoption of Saul, 804 N.E.2d 359 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). “The mother made timely objections to the admission of her psychiatric records on privilege grounds.”

G.E.B. v. S.R.W., 661 N.E.2d 646 (Mass. 1996). “See G. L. c. 231, § 119 (1994 ed.) (“No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence .”

Michael a. David v. Jonathan P. Kelly & Another., 100 Mass. App. Ct. 443 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021). “See G. L. c. 231, § 119; Mass. R. Civ. P. 61, 365 Mass.”

Crown v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd., 8 N.E.3d 281 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “Moreover, even if the plaintiff’s claims of evidentiary error were valid, those errors would not have been prejudicial, see G.L. c. 231, § 119, Mass.R.Civ.P. 61, 365 Mass.”

Show all 59 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.