Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 261, § 13 (2026)

Discretion of court

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 13. In civil actions or other proceedings in which no provision is expressly made by law, the costs shall be wholly in the discretion of the court, but no greater amount shall be taxed therein than is allowed for similar charges in actions in which costs are expressly provided for by law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases, 1921–2010 · leading case: Berman v. Linnane, 434 Mass. 301 (Mass. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Berman v. Linnane, 434 Mass. 301 (Mass. 2001). “A judge’s award of costs is also discretionary, see G. L. c. 261, § 13, and there has been no showing that the refusal to allow nonstatutory costs was an abuse of that discretion.”

Waldman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 579 N.E.2d 480 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991). · cites it 5× “635, 640 (1971), the court, in affirming an order denying taxation of “expenditure for depositions, expert witness fees, transcribing of testimony, printing of the record and testimony, and costs of printing for briefs,” said: “We do not know why the judge did not award those…”

Fuller v. Trs. of Deerfield Academy, 252 Mass. 258 (Mass. 1925). · cites it 2× “We are of opinion that it was beyond the power of the court to impose such terms on any principle of equity practice now prevalent in this Commonwealth.”

Waldman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 597 N.E.2d 404 (Mass. 1992). “We explained that “G. L. c. 261, § 13, places the matter [of costs] ‘wholly in the discretion of the court,’ and no abuse of that discretion has been shown [in the judge’s denial of the motion for costs].”

Fuss v. Fuss (No. 1), 368 N.E.2d 271 (Mass. 1977). “207, § 14, proceeding. We leave that question to another case where it is clearly presented.”

Creed v. Apog, 386 N.E.2d 1273 (Mass. 1979). “” It must also be read in harmony with G. L. c. 261, § 13, as appearing in St. 1973, c.”

Newburyport Redevelopment Auth. v. Commonwealth, 401 N.E.2d 118 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). “187, § 3, and the person claiming the easement thereafter brings an action for the purpose of trying his right. There is no evidence that either the authority or the city ever gave such notice under § 3.”

George v. Coolidge Bank & Trust Co., 277 N.E.2d 278 (Mass. 1971). “We do not know why the judge did not award those costs, but G. L. c. 261, § 13, places the matter “wholly in the discretion of the court,” and no abuse of that discretion has been shown.”

M. C. v. Comm'r of Corr., 507 N.E.2d 253 (Mass. 1987). “231 A, § 7, which also allows costs to be awarded in the discretion of the judge, is not supportive of an award of costs against the Commonwealth in this case.”

Deary v. City of Gloucester, 789 F. Supp. 61 (D. Mass. 1992). “2d at 1347 (quoting Mass. Gen.L. ch. 261, § 13). The rationale of Freeman should be extended to this case.”

Broadhurst v. Dir. of the Div. of Emp. Sec., 373 Mass. 720 (Mass. 1977). “7 We disagree also with the plaintiffs’ argument that the award of costs against the Commonwealth is authorized by G. L. c. 261, § 13 (as appearing in St. 1973, c.”

Curtis v. Comm'r of Corporations & Taxation., 163 N.E.2d 151 (Mass. 1959). “1 Section 1, aa so amended, so far as pertinent reads: “All property within the . . . commonwealth, .”

Show all 23 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.