Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 96 (2026)

Relief from final judgment; vacation; effect of attachment

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 96. On motion made pursuant to the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure or the District-Municipal Courts Rules of Civil Procedure, and upon such terms as are just, a court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment. If no attachment was made in the action, such relief may be granted and execution stayed without security; but if there was such attachment, the amount of the bond shall be fixed at the actual value of the property attached, as agreed by the parties or determined by the court. Liability upon an attachment made or bond given in the original action shall not continue after the judgment has been vacated, except that if the prevailing party has been relieved from judgment under this section within thirty days of the entry thereof, such liability shall, if a subsequent judgment is rendered, continue during such time thereafter as it would have continued upon the original judgment had it not been vacated.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 85 cases, 1921–1990 · leading case: Pollack v. Kelly, 362 N.E.2d 525 (Mass. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pollack v. Kelly, 362 N.E.2d 525 (Mass. 1977). “730 (1974), and the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure, 365 Mass.”

Rollins Env't Servs., Inc. v. Superior Court, 330 N.E.2d 814 (Mass. 1975). “Refore implementation of the new Massachusetts rules regulating civil and appellate procedure, it was the settled law, established by a long line of decisions of this court, that an order denying a motion for summary judgment under G.”

Cheraska v. Ohanasian, 52 A.L.R. 1149 (Mass. 1927). · cites it 3× “It is provided by G. L. c. 231, § 96, that “A party aggrieved by any order of the Superior Court sustaining or overruling a demurrer which alleges that the facts stated in the pleadings demurred to do not in law support or answer the action .”

George v. Jordan Marsh Co., 268 N.E.2d 915 (Mass. 1971). “The case is before us on the plaintiff’s appeal under G. L. c. 231, § 96, from an order of a judge of the Superior Court sustaining the defendants’ demurrer to each of the three counts.”

Samuel v. Page-Storms Drop Forge Co., 243 Mass. 133 (Mass. 1922). “257, § 432, now embodied in G. L. c. 231, § 96. By its plain terms appeal now is available as a means for bringing to this court for review errors of law alleged to have been committed by the Superior Court in civil actions or proceedings at law in only three instances: First,…”

Morrill v. Crawford, 179 N.E. 609 (Mass. 1932). · cites it 2× “Prior to the expiration of the ten days for amendment of the third count, and without any amendment having been made, the plaintiff appealed from the order sustaining the demurrer to the first and third counts and limiting amendment of the third count. There is no appeal from…”

Graphic Arts Finishers, Inc. v. Boston Redevelopment Auth., 255 N.E.2d 793 (Mass. 1970). “G. L. c. 231, § 96. The case involves an alleged agreement by the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) to pay the expenses of relocating a business displaced by the Government Center Urban Renewal Project.”

Check v. Kaplan, 182 N.E. 305 (Mass. 1932). “Since this appears to be an action at law, the order of the court was final disposition of his petition or motion.”

LiDonni, Inc. v. Hart, 246 N.E.2d 446 (Mass. 1969). “G. L. c. 231, § 96. Abrams v. Reynolds Metals Co.”

Graustein v. Dolan, 185 N.E. 489 (Mass. 1933). “G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 214, §§ 19, 26. An order for a decree has never been the subject of appeal as such in equity cases except during the period between the taking effect of G.”

Sullivan v. Roche, 153 N.E. 549 (Mass. 1926). “G. L. c. 231, § 96. Samuel v. *171 Page-Storms Drop Forge Co.”

Lynch v. Signal Fin. Co. of Quincy, 327 N.E.2d 732 (Mass. 1975). “The defendant filed a demurrer stating four grounds, one of which was the statute of limitations provided by G.”

Show all 85 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.