Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 249, § 6 (2026)

Action in the nature of quo warranto

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 6. A person whose private right or interest has been injured or put in hazard by the exercise of a franchise or privilege not conferred by law, by a private corporation or by persons claiming to be a private corporation, whether he is a member of such corporation or not, may bring a civil action in the nature of a quo warranto in the supreme judicial or superior court in the county where the defendant has its principal place of business seeking an injunction against such exercise. A copy of the complaint shall be served on the attorney general.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1927–1976 · leading case: SDK Med. Comput. Servs. Corp. v. Prof'l Operating Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 354 N.E.2d 852 (Mass. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

SDK Med. Comput. Servs. Corp. v. Prof'l Operating Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 354 N.E.2d 852 (Mass. 1976). “13 The plaintiffs attempt to support count I by calling it a civil action in the nature of quo warranto (G. L. c. 249, § 6), but the appeal to a changed nomenclature does not remedy the defects noted above, and in any case the plaintiffs do not have the “private right or…”

Gardner Trust Co. v. Whitehall Corp., 157 N.E. 519 (Mass. 1927). “This is a petition under G. L. c. 249, § 6, whereby provision is made to the effect that “A person whose private right or interest has been injured or is put in hazard, by the exercise of a franchise or privilege not conferred by law, by a private corporation or by persons…”

Adams v. Hannah, 158 N.E. 330 (Mass. 1927). “The petition is brought under G. L. c. 249, § 6, whereby “A person whose private right or interest has been injured or is put in hazard, by the exercise of a franchise or privilege not conferred by law, by a private corporation or by persons claiming to be a private corporation .”

Adams v. Hannah, 266 Mass. 101 (Mass. 1929). “” Under G. L. c. 249, §§ 6, 7, and 10, such evidence is required in the summary hearing upon the petition for leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranta, and, in the absence of the Attorney General’s intervention, such proof is required at the hearing on the…”

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.