Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 3 (2026)

Venue; jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 3. All civil actions brought against a public employer on a claim for damages cognizable under this chapter shall be brought in the county where the claimant resides or in the county where such public employer is situated, except that in the case of the commonwealth such civil actions shall be brought in the county where the claimant resides or in Suffolk county. The superior court shall have jurisdiction of all civil actions brought against a public employer. The district court and housing court shall have jurisdiction of actions brought against housing authorities pursuant to sections twenty-one to twenty-five, inclusive, of chapter two hundred and eighteen.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2021 · leading case: Irwin v. Town of Ware, 467 N.E.2d 1292 (Mass. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Irwin v. Town of Ware, 467 N.E.2d 1292 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 2× “Instead, G.L.c. 258, § 3, permits claims to be brought "in the county where the claimant resides or in the county where [the] public employer is situated" (emphasis added), and contains no provision precluding payment of individual claims prior to the adjudication of all extant…”

Jaundoo v. Clarke, 690 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D. Mass. 2010). · cites it 2× ““Under the Massachusetts Tort Claim Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 2 , the Commonwealth has waived sovereign immunity for certain suits, but only in the Superior Court.”

Irwin v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Youth Serv., 448 N.E.2d 721 (Mass. 1983). · cites it 2× “We think that the Legislature's failure to include the term "exclusive jurisdiction" of the Superior Court in G.L.c. 258, § 3, is *820 insufficient basis to infer therefrom its consent to suit in Federal courts, particularly as such consent is not lightly to be inferred.”

Doe v. Town of Blandford, 525 N.E.2d 403 (Mass. 1988). “The final issue raised by the defendants deals with when, and to whom, the plaintiff presented her claim as required by G. L. c. 258, § 3. General Laws c. 258, § 4, inserted by St.”

The Woodward Sch. for Girls, Inc. v. City of Quincy, 13 N.E.3d 579 (Mass. 2014). “41 Because we conclude that Quincy waived the provisions of the Tort Claims Act, including its exceptions, we decline to address Quincy’s claim that the Probate and Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction for the claim under G. L. c. 258, § 3. For the same reason, we…”

Rivera v. Com. of Mass., 16 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D. Mass. 1998). “In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Judicial Court pointed to its longstanding holding that the jurisdiction conferred upon the superior court by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 3 , is exclusive.”

Carroll v. City of Worcester, 678 N.E.2d 1344 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997). “The complaint was dismissed on October 13, 1992, because, as provided in G. L. c. 258, § 3, the Superior Court has exclusive jurisdiction of tort actions brought against a public employer.”

Ciampa v. Beverly Airport Comm'n, 650 N.E.2d 816 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995). “See G. L. c. 258, § 3. The plaintiffs then commenced a new action in the Superior Court, five months after the expiration of the limitations period, invoking as authority G.”

Broadhurst v. Dir. of the Div. of Emp. Sec., 373 Mass. 720 (Mass. 1977). “79, §§ 22, 37, and G. L. c. 258, § 3, which did not at that time provide for awards of interest to be assessed against the Commonwealth in eminent domain cases.”

Curtis v. Comm'r of Corporations & Taxation., 163 N.E.2d 151 (Mass. 1959). “commonwealth, . . . and any interest therein, belonging to inhabitants of the commonwealth, .”

Irwin v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Youth Servs., 448 N.E.2d 721 (Mass. 1983). · cites it 2× “We think that the Legislature’s failure to include the term “exclusive jurisdiction” of the Superior Court in G. L. c. 258, § 3, is *820 insufficient basis to infer therefrom its consent to suit in Federal courts, particularly as such consent is not lightly to be inferred.”

Broadhurst v. Dir. of the Div. of Emp. Sec., 369 N.E.2d 1018 (Mass. 1977). “79, §§ 22, 37, and G.L.c. 258, § 3, which did not at that time provide for awards of interest to be assessed against the Commonwealth in eminent domain cases.”

Show all 26 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.