Massachusetts General Laws
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 94 (2026)
Evidence in mitigation of damages
✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MAmalegislature.gov (official)
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 94. In an action for libel, the defendant may allege and prove in mitigation of damages that the plaintiff already has brought action for or recovered damages for, or has received or has agreed to receive compensation in respect of, substantially the same libel as that for which such action was brought. In an action for libel or slander, he may introduce in evidence, in mitigation of damages and in rebuttal of evidence of actual malice, acts of the plaintiff which create a reasonable suspicion that the matters charged against him by the defendant are true.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1974–1979 · leading case: Stone v. Essex Cnty. Newspapers, Inc., 330 N.E.2d 161 (Mass. 1975).
Stone v. Essex Cnty. Newspapers, Inc., 330 N.E.2d 161 (Mass. 1975). “In addition, the defendant may introduce evidence of a retraction in mitigation of damages, G.L.c. 231, § 94, as appearing in St. 1943, c.”
Stone v. Essex Cnty. Newspapers, Inc., 311 N.E.2d 52 (Mass. 1974). “The defendant may introduce evidence of a retraction in mitigation of damages, G.L.c. 231, § 94, as amended by St. 1943, c.”
Liquori v. Repub. Co., 396 N.E.2d 726 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). “The *681 judge instructed the jury that damages in Massachusetts in this type of action are limited to actual damages; that they could not award punitive damages; that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff; that the “correction” 11 printed by the Union and the Daily News on…”
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.