Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 249, § 4 (2026)

Action in the nature of certiorari; limitation; joinder of party defendant; injunction; judgment

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 4. A civil action in the nature of certiorari to correct errors in proceedings which are not according to the course of the common law, which proceedings are not otherwise reviewable by motion or by appeal, may be brought in the supreme judicial or superior court or, if the matter involves any right, title or interest in land, or arises under or involves the subdivision control law, the zoning act or municipal zoning, or subdivision ordinances, by–laws or regulations, in the land court or, if the matter involves fence viewers, in the district court. Such action shall be commenced within sixty days next after the proceeding complained of. Where such an action is brought against a body or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions to prevent the body or officer from proceeding in favor of another party, or is brought with relation to proceedings already taken, such other party may be joined as a party defendant by the plaintiff or on motion of the defendant body or officer or by application to intervene. Such other party may file a separate answer or adopt the pleadings of the body or officer. The court may at any time after the commencement of the action issue an injunction and order the record of the proceedings complained of brought before it. The court may enter judgment quashing or affirming such proceedings or such other judgment as justice may require.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 592 cases (77 in the last 5 years), 1926–2026 · leading case: Frawley v. Police Comm'r of Cambridge, 46 N.E.3d 504 (Mass. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Frawley v. Police Comm'r of Cambridge, 46 N.E.3d 504 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 8× “Rather, the proper avenue for relief is a civil action in the nature of certiorari pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4. It is undisputed that the regulations do not provide, in express terms, a private right of action for an aggrieved party to challenge the denial of an ID card.”

Grady v. Comm'r of Corr., 981 N.E.2d 730 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 11× “30A, § 14, which requires that a complaint be filed within thirty days of the final action complained of, or subject to G. L. c. 249, § 4, which sets out a sixty-day limitation period.”

Diatchenko v. Dist. Attorney for the Suffolk Dist. Commonwealth v. Roberio, 27 N.E.3d 349 (Mass. 2015). · cites it 6× “Diatchenko and Roberio suggest that judicial review in this context should be in the nature of certiorari, as described in G. L. c. 249, § 4, rather than through an action for declaratory relief under G.”

Boston Edison Co. v. Boston Redevelopment Auth., 371 N.E.2d 728 (Mass. 1977). · cites it 6× “652, G.L.c. 249, § 4, provided in pertinent part: "It shall be open to the petitioner to contend at the hearing upon the petition [for certiorari] that the evidence which formed the basis of the action complained of or the basis of any specified finding or conclusion was as…”

Forsyth Sch. for Dental Hygienists v. Bd. of Reg. in Dentistry, 534 N.E.2d 773 (Mass. 1989). · cites it 8× “The school argues in the *214 alternative that it is entitled to review under G.L.c. 249, § 4, and that the matter should be remanded to the board for a statement of reasons that would permit a reviewing court to ascertain whether the board's action was arbitrary or capricious.”

State Bd. of Ret. v. Woodward, 446 Mass. 698 (Mass. 2006). · cites it 7× “5 The board filed a petition for certiorari under G. L. c. 249, § 4, in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County.”

Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985). · cites it 2× “Moreover, the Attorney General omitted any reference to the fact that less than one month before this case was argued before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, that court rejected, in the context of a challenge to prison disciplinary hearings, the Attorney General's…”

Indeck v. Clients' Sec. Bd., 879 N.E.2d 57 (Mass. 2008). · cites it 7× “This case requires us to decide whether a decision of the board with respect to the reimbursement of a claim is subject to certiorari review pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4, 2 where S.J.C. Rule 4:05, § 1, as amended, 440 Mass.”

Figgs v. Boston Hous. Auth., 14 N.E.3d 229 (Mass. 2014). · cites it 6× “The judge concluded that the hearing officer’s reliance on the Cl’s hearsay statements constituted legal error because the statements were not supported by substantial indicia of reliability and, therefore, were not sufficient to support the termination of Figgs’s Section 8…”

Marchese v. Bos. Redevelopment Auth., 130 N.E.3d 1222 (Mass. 2019). · cites it 5× “Second, the plaintiff argues that he has standing under G. L. c. 249, § 4, which permits a party to bring "[a] civil action in the nature of certiorari to correct errors in proceedings" under certain circumstances.”

City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gaming Comm'n, 71 N.E.3d 457 (Mass. 2017). · cites it 2× “30A, § 14 (count I), and under G. L. c. 249, § 4 (count II). Concerning counts I and II, they allege, for example, that the commission in its agreement to award the license to Wynn failed to include several commitments or conditions required by the act relating to environmental…”

Durbin v. Bd. of Selectmen, 814 N.E.2d 1121 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 4× “The Durbins here argue that the Superior Court judge, who heard the matter on their petition for certiorari relief pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4, committed numerous errors, which distill into *3 the following contentions: (1) the judge erred in denying their motion for leave to…”

Show all 592 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.