Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 251, § 9 (2026)

Award; modification by arbitrators

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 9. Upon application of a party or, if an application to the court is pending under sections eleven, twelve or thirteen, on submission to the arbitrators by the court under such conditions as the court may order, the arbitrators may modify or correct the award upon the grounds stated in (1) and (3) of subdivision (a) of section thirteen, or for the purpose of clarifying the award. The application shall be made within twenty days after delivery of the award to the applicant. Written notice thereof shall be given forthwith to the opposing party, stating he must serve his objections thereto, if any, within ten days from the notice. The award so modified or corrected shall be subject to the provisions of sections eleven, twelve and thirteen.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 1973–2018 · leading case: Trs. of Boston & Maine Corp. v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 294 N.E.2d 340 (Mass. 1973).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Trs. of Boston & Maine Corp. v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 294 N.E.2d 340 (Mass. 1973). · cites it 3× “251 do not recognize the pendency of a request to the arbitrator to modify the award or an actual modification or correction of the award by the arbitrator as measuring points for determining whether an application to the court to vacate or modify an award has been seasonably…”

Connecticut Valley Sanitary Waste Disposal, Inc. v. Zielinski, 763 N.E.2d 1080 (Mass. 2002). · cites it 2× “251, § 13 (a) (1), incorporated in G. L. c. 251, § 9. 9 Connecticut Valley contends that what it asked the arbitrators to do and what they did was merely correct an evident miscalculation in the award.”

Baxter Health Care, Corp. v. Harvard Apparatus, Inc., 617 N.E.2d 1018 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 2× “G. L. c. 251, §§ 9 & 13. See Trustees of Boston & Me.”

Marino v. Tagaris, 480 N.E.2d 286 (Mass. 1985). “See G. L. c. 251, §§ 9, 12, 13. However, neither the rules nor the guide explicitly refers to these rights.”

Harvard Cmty. Health Plan, Inc. v. Zack, 603 N.E.2d 924 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992). “Neither party has discussed whether any type of third-party beneficiary analysis concerning this second contract might be appropriate.”

Letke Sec. Contractors, Inc. v. United States Sur. Co., 991 A.2d 1306 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2010). “The court opined as follows: “If it were necessary to a decision in this case, we would hold that neither an application to an arbitrator under G.L. c. 251, § 9, for modification or correction of his award nor a modification or correction of that award by the arbitrator extends…”

Dadak v. Com. Ins., 758 N.E.2d 1083 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001). “3 Within the twenty days from receipt of the award allowed for a claim of miscalculation of figures, see G. L. c. 251, § 9, the plaintiff asked the arbitrator to reconsider and add the $13,333.”

Nat'l Grid USA v. TransCanada Power Mktg. Ltd., 859 N.E.2d 869 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). “6 See G. L. c. 251, § 9. c. The proceedings on remand.”

Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 57 F. Supp. 3d 112 (D. Mass. 2014). · cites it 5× “Nationwide opposed this request, arguing that the Panel lacked jurisdiction to clarify the Award and that, in any event, Liberty’s motion was untimely pursuant to the Massachusetts Arbitration Act (“MAA”), G.L. c. 251, § 9. Notwithstanding Nationwide’s protestations, the…”

Cent. Ceilings, Inc. v. Suffolk Constr. Co., Inc., 101 N.E.3d 937 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, the remanding judge *210 remanded the matter to the arbitrator pursuant to G. L. c. 251, §§ 9, 13, for the calculation of preaward interest.”

Dukas v. Yiu, 2009 Mass. App. Div. 234 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2009). · cites it 3× “The arbitrator denied the request, stating: I feel that I am constrained by the Commercial Rules and the provisions of G.L.c. 251, §9, under which authority I may not consider or act on the motion.”

Heritage Constr. & Dev., Inc. v. O'Connor, 25 Mass. L. Rptr. 1 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “Indeed, if the District Court and Boston Municipal Court have jurisdiction to confirm, but not to vacate, an arbitration award, it would mean that the Legislature intended the word “court” in section 9 to refer simultaneously to different courts.”

Show all 13 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.