Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 132 (2026)

Error not affecting substantial rights; partial new trial

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 132. No new trial shall be granted in any civil action or proceeding on the ground of improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, if the judge who presided at the trial when application is made by motion for a new trial, or the appeals court or the supreme judicial court when application is made by appeal or otherwise, deems that the error complained of has not injuriously affected the substantial rights of the parties; and, if it appears to such court that said error affects part only of the matter in controversy or some or one only 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 49 cases, 1922–2011 · leading case: Boston Edison Co. v. Massachusetts Water Resources Auth., 947 N.E.2d 544 (Mass. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Boston Edison Co. v. Massachusetts Water Resources Auth., 947 N.E.2d 544 (Mass. 2011). “See G. L. c. 231, § 132 (if trial judge ordering new trial decides that “error affects part only of the matter in controversy .”

Brotkin v. Feinberg, 265 Mass. 295 (Mass. 1928). · cites it 2× “By G. L. c. 231, § 132, it is provided: “No new trial shall be granted in any .”

Flood v. Southland Corp., 601 N.E.2d 23 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992). “See G. L. c. 231, § 132; Mass.R.Civ.P. 59(a), 365 Mass.”

Elias v. Suran, 616 N.E.2d 134 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993). “G. L. c. 231, § 132 (new trial). Timmons v.”

Kelly v. O'NEIL, 296 N.E.2d 223 (Mass. App. Ct. 1973). “In view of the aura of officialdom inherent in the report and apparent on its face, we cannot conclude that the error in admitting the report did not injuriously affect the substantial rights of the defendant within the purview of G. L. c. 231, § 132. See Jacobs v. The Hertz…”

Agoos Leather Companies, Inc. v. Am. & Foreign Ins., 174 N.E.2d 652 (Mass. 1961). “Nevertheless, we think that exclusion of the agreement, when offered for this purpose, was not prejudicial. Bosenburg, even if a hostile witness, had expressed no opinion as to the value which could adversely affect the defendants.”

Savage v. Welch, 246 Mass. 170 (Mass. 1923). “” G. L. c. 231, § 132. No discussion is required to show that the allowance of a motion to file a substitute declaration which introduces no new cause of action and no new party relates to pleading or procedure.”

Fusaro v. Blakely, 661 N.E.2d 1339 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996). “See G. L. c. 231, § 132; Kaye v. Newhall, 360 Mass.”

Maker v. Bouthier, 242 Mass. 20 (Mass. 1922). “See, in this connection, G. L. c. 231, § 132. The case at bar is distinguishable from Wood v.”

Malaguti v. Rosen, 160 N.E. 532 (Mass. 1928). “The statute does not in terms make the validity of a certificate of registration dependent upon the recording of the power of attorney.”

Phillips v. Vorenberg, 156 N.E. 61 (Mass. 1927). “G. L. c. 231, § 132. The interest during the period from January 28, 1904, to July 28,1912, was paid by the defendant either at the rate stated in the note or at an increased rate agreed upon by the parties.”

Gishen v. Dura Corp., 285 N.E.2d 117 (Mass. 1972). “G. L. c. 231, § 132. See Bond Pharmacy, Inc.”

Show all 49 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.