Massachusetts General Laws
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 247, § 7 (2026)
Goods unlawfully taken, detained or attached
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MAmalegislature.gov (official)
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 7. If goods exceeding twenty dollars in value are unlawfully taken or detained from the owner or person entitled to their possession, or if goods of that value, which have been attached on mesne process or taken on execution, are claimed by a person other than the defendant in the action in which they have been so attached or taken, the owner or such other person may cause them to be replevied.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Nasif v. Palladino (In re Palladino), 560 B.R. 608 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2016).
Nasif v. Palladino (In re Palladino), 560 B.R. 608 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2016). “266, § 30 (5); Conspiracy pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 247, § 7 , Tampering with a Record, Document or Other Object, namely a computer kept at Viking containing its records .”
Baker v. Gray, 785 N.E.2d 395 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003). “Alternatively, they could have brought an action for replevin pursuant to G. L. c. 247, § 7. Finally, to the extent the plaintiffs believed that their certificate had been improperly suspended or revoked without the hearing required by G.”
Evergreen Marine Corp. v. Six Consignments of Frozen Scallops, 806 F. Supp. 291 (D. Mass. 1992). “Mass.Gen.L. ch. 247, § 7. Evergreen alleges that the value of the scallops is approximately $1,200,00.”
Carignan v. United States, 48 F.R.D. 323 (D. Mass. 1969). “…law today authorizes replevin when the original taking was without wrong. Whitman v. Merrill, 125 Mass. 127 (1878). Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 247, § 7 .”
da Silva v. Coffee Connection, Inc., 3 Mass. L. Rptr. 36 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1994). “Under Massachusetts law the elements of replevin are (i) that the goods in question have a value greater than $20, (ii) that the goods are unlawfully taken or detained, and (iii) that the owner or person entitled to possession is deprived of the goods.”
Echomail, Inc. v. Am. Express Co., 445 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D. Mass. 2006). “EchoMail does not dispute that AmEx demanded return of the server and confidential information or that items of that nature are subject to a replevin action.”
Smith v. Silva (2021). “Smith is entitled to damages for the trees harmed during construction of the driveway pursuant to G. L. c. 247, § 7. Synthesizing the issues presented by both parties, the court will first address the parties' respective rights and restrictions under the 1997 Easement, and will…”
Power v. Connectweb Tech., Inc. (D. Mass. 2024). “See Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 247, § 7. To prevail on such (V) damage affecting a computer used by or for an entity of the United States Government in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security[.”
Kimberly Mccormick v. Richard J. Beckwith, Pers. Rep.. (Mass. App. Ct. 2025). “See G. L. c. 247, § 7. 2 or may have been harmed by the defendant's conduct.”
Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. MHPG, Inc., 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 395 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2006). “See G.L.c. 247, §7 (“If goods exceeding twenty dollars in value are unlawfully taken or detained from the owner or person entitled to their possession, or if goods of that value, which have been attached on mesne process or taken on execution, are claimed by a person other than…”
Wilson v. Est. of Arcese, 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 11 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2007). “1993)), citing G.L.c. 247, §7. A party seeking replevin “must maintain his case on the strength of his own title or claim.”
Verdrager v. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., 32 Mass. L. Rptr. 27 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2013). “G.L.c. 247, §7. In addition, a parly seeking replevin must be the sole owner of the property.”
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.