Section 2. The procedure under section one may be used to secure determinations of right, duty, status or other legal relations under deeds, wills or written contracts or other writings constituting a contract or contracts or under the common law, or a charter, statute, municipal ordinance or by-law, or administrative regulation, including determination of any question of construction or validity thereof which may be involved in such determination. Said procedure under section one may be used in the superior court to enjoin and to obtain a determination of the legality of the administrative practices and procedures of any municipal, county or state agency or official which practices or procedures are alleged to be in violation of the Constitution of the United States or of the constitution or laws of the commonwealth, or are in violation of rules or regulations promulgated under the authority of such laws, which violation has been consistently repeated; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to the governor and council or the legislative and judicial departments. For the purpose of this section practices or procedures mean the customary and usual method of conducting municipal, county, state agency or official business.
The foregoing enumeration shall not limit or restrict the exercise of the general powers conferred in section one in any proceeding where declaratory relief is sought, in which a judgment or decree will terminate the controversy or remove an uncertainty.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
72
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case:
Nelson v. Comm'r of Corr., 456 N.E.2d 1100 (Mass. 1983).
Frawley v. Police Comm'r of Cambridge, 46 N.E.3d 504 (Mass. 2016).
“12 (1983), citing G. L. c. 231A, § 2. However, we have said that declaratory judgment is not “an appropriate remedy where the validity of an adjudication .”
Diatchenko v. Dist. Attorney for the Suffolk Dist. Commonwealth v. Roberio, 27 N.E.3d 349 (Mass. 2015).
“" G. L. c. 231A, § 2. Accordingly, Diatchenko, Roberio, and similarly situated inmates may contest the board's practices that fail to consider the unique characteristics of juvenile offenders as well as displayed growth and change from adolescence, as required by Diatchenko I.”
McDuffy v. Sec'y of the Exec. Off. of Educ., 615 N.E.2d 516 (Mass. 1993).
“G.L.c. 231A, § 2. See note 2, supra. [5] The Levy plaintiffs have adopted the brief and record of the McDuffy plaintiffs and agree that the court's decision "will almost certainly" be dispositive of their claims.”
Samuels Pharmacy, Inc. v. Bd. of Reg. in Pharmacy, 390 Mass. 583 (1983).
· cites it 2× “” G. L. c. 231A, § 2. The plaintiffs here allege that the searches and seizures by the State police were violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and therefore the indication by the board that it will admit the seized evidence at the…”
Ciszewski v. Indus. Accident Bd., 325 N.E.2d 270 (Mass. 1975).
· cites it 2× “If the board is relying instead on G. L. c. 231A, § 2, 4 their argument fares no better.”
Williams v. Secr. of Exec. Off. of Human Serv., 609 N.E.2d 447 (Mass. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiffs assert that G.L.c. 231A, § 2 (1990 ed.), provides the necessary cause of action to challenge the defendants' alleged failure to comply with G.”
Casey v. Massachusetts Elec. Co., 467 N.E.2d 1358 (Mass. 1984).
“G. L. c. 231A, § 2. A judge of the Superior Court reported four questions to the Appeals Court on a statement of agreed facts.”
Kenney v. Comm'r of Corr., 468 N.E.2d 616 (Mass. 1984).
“” G. L. c. 231A, § 2. See Nelson v. Commissioner of Correction, supra at 387 n.”
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.