Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title V Chapter 260
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 19 (2026)

Special limitations

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 19. If a special provision is otherwise made relative to the limitation of any action, any provision of this chapter inconsistent therewith shall not apply.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1930–2025 · 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× “The "per incident" construction of the statute makes settlement of any claims by adults, arising from incidents of negligence in which one or more minors have been injured, difficult, if not impossible. A "per plaintiff" construction of the statute avoids this difficulty, among…”
O'BRIEN v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 541 N.E.2d 334 (Mass. 1989). · cites it 2× “The MBTA also points to G. L. c. 260, § 19, which provides: “If a special provision is otherwise made relative to the limitation of any action, any provision of this chapter inconsistent therewith shall not apply.”
Abrahamson v. Est. of LeBold, 47 N.E.3d 686 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 3× “See G. L. c. 260, § 19 (“If a special provision is otherwise made relative to the limitation of any action, any provision of this chapter inconsistent therewith shall not apply”).”
Hernandez v. City of Boston, 474 N.E.2d 166 (Mass. 1985). · cites it 2× “” G. L. c. 260, § 19. The city asks us to read into G.”
Gaudette v. Webb, 284 N.E.2d 222 (Mass. 1972). “’ G. L. c. 260, § 19. . . . The limitation imposed by G.”
Ford v. Comm'r of Corr., 537 N.E.2d 1265 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989). “Assuming the amendment does not apply to Ford’s claim, G. L. c. 260, § 19, provides that “[i]f a special provision is otherwise made relative to the limitation of any action, any provision of [G.”
Carroll v. City of Worcester, 678 N.E.2d 1344 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997). “2 Further, there is nothing in G. L. c. 260, § 19, that sup *630 ports the defendants’ claim that the action is time-barred.”
Bickford v. Furber, 170 N.E. 796 (Mass. 1930). “” G. L. c. 260, § 19. Hill v. Arnold, 199 Mass.”
Noon v. Beford, 209 N.E.2d 292 (Mass. 1965). “’ G. L. c. 260, § 19. . . . The limitation imposed by G.”
Jomides v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 488 N.E.2d 800 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986). “Also G.L.c. 260, § 19, provides, "If a special provision is otherwise made relative to the limitation of any action, any provision of this chapter inconsistent therewith shall not apply.”
Jomides v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 488 N.E.2d 800 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986). “Also G. L. c. 260, § 19, provides, “If a special provision is otherwise made relative to the limitation of any action, any provision of this chapter inconsistent therewith shall not apply.”
Velardi v. Givens, 2005 Mass. App. Div. 164 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2005). “the plaintiff shall be given thirty days after the date of the notice of dismissal... to file the case in the appropriate court[.”
Show all 16 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.