Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 235, § 4 (2026)

Judgment nunc pro tunc

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 4. Every judgment or order of the supreme judicial, superior or land court shall bear date of the year, month and day when entered; but the court may order it to be entered as of an earlier day than that of entry.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1923–2025 · leading case: Santos v. Chrysler Corp., 430 Mass. 198 (Mass. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Santos v. Chrysler Corp., 430 Mass. 198 (Mass. 1999). “As this failure “to timely move” for an entry was not caused by court proceedings, the defendant argues that judgment should not have entered until the date the rule 54 (b) motion was allowed.”

Almeida Bus Lines, Inc. v. Dep't of Pub. Utils., 203 N.E.2d 556 (Mass. 1965). “obtained within three years after the date ’ ’ when a license is issued, requires us to look only to the actual date of issuance of the certificate to determine its validity, or whether the department can use the device of an order nunc pro tunc to set an earlier date.”

Fisher v. Fisher, 212 N.E.2d 222 (Mass. 1965). “G. L. c. 235, §4. It follows, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to receive from the partnership such sums as may be determined to be due him if the partnership had been dissolved as of June 23, 1961, in accordance with the provisions of G.”

Sack v. Dir. Gen. of Railroads, 139 N.E. 819 (Mass. 1923). “G. L. c. 235, § 4. Genga v. Director General of Railroads, 243 Mass.”

Bullock, 254 Mass. 14 (Mass. 1925). “G. L. c. 235, § 4. 3. The present petition was seasonably filed after June 20, 1925, when the order of disallowance of the exceptions was in fact entered.”

Hale v. Wheeler, 163 N.E. 178 (Mass. 1928). “G. L. c. 235, §§ 4, 11, 17, 19, 20. See Habib v.”

Commonwealth v. Yasin (Mass. 2019). “In civil matters, nunc pro tunc entries may be made under G. L. c. 235, § 4, a statute that is "declaratory of the common law.”

Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Tenacity Constr., Inc., 33 Mass. L. Rptr. 370 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2016). “399, 400 (1935) (“Courts have inherent powers in appropriate cases to make entries nunc pro tunc”); G.L.c. 235, §4 (court may provide that any “judgment or order” shall take effect as if “entered as of an earlier day”).”

Moshe Yanai, Rachel Yanai, & Michal Int'l Inv. LLC v. Zack Keinan, Individually & as Gen. Partner of Scintilla Holdings, Ltd.; Scintilla Holdings, Ltd., as Gen. Partner of Scintilla Fund, L.P.; & Boaz Toshav (Mass. Super. Ct. 2025). “399, 400 (1935) (“Courts have inherent powers in appropriate cases to make entries nunc pro tunc”); G.L. c. 235, § 4 (court may provide that any “judgment or order” shall take effect as if “entered as of an earlier day”).”

Angeles v. Uson, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 137 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2013). “399, 400 (1935) (“Courts have inherent powers in appropriate cases to make entries nunc pro tunc”); G.L.c. 235, §4 (court may provide that any “judgment or order” shall take effect as if “entered as of an earlier day”).”

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.