Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 32 (2026)

Motion picture theater managers or operators; applicability of Secs. 28, 29 and 29A

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 32. The provisions of sections twenty-eight, twenty-nine and twenty-nine A shall not apply to a manager or a motion picture operator or assistant operator licensed under sections seventy-five and seventy-six, respectively, of chapter one hundred and forty-three, who is employed in a motion picture theatre licensed under section one hundred and eighty-one of chapter one hundred and forty and the provisions of the state building code, in connection with a motion picture show exhibited in said theatre; provided that such manager, operator or assistant operator has no financial interest in the motion picture theatre wherein he is so employed; and provided, further, that such manager has no authority in determining which motion picture films are to be presented in said theatre.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1970–1982 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Capri Enter., Inc., 310 N.E.2d 326 (Mass. 1974).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Capri Enter., Inc., 310 N.E.2d 326 (Mass. 1974). · cites it 8× “'" The corporate defendant was also indicted under G.L.c. 272, § 32, for knowingly showing "a lewd, obscene, *180 indecent, immoral and impure show and entertainment by presenting and exhibiting a motion picture film entitled `The Devil In Miss Jones.”

New Palm Gardens, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm'n, 420 N.E.2d 8 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). · cites it 2× “Roth in its original notice of hearing dated July 24, 1979, and in its decision dated September 26, 1979, the commission referred to a violation of G. L. c. 272, § 32, 4 instead of to a violation of G.”

City of Revere v. Aucella, 338 N.E.2d 816 (Mass. 1975). · cites it 2× “179, 180 (1974), holding unconstitutional G.L.c. 272, § 32, as to a "lewd, obscene, indecent, immoral and impure" motion picture film; Commonwealth v.”

P. B. I. C., Inc. v. Byrne, 313 F. Supp. 757 (D. Mass. 1970). · cites it 2× “" [2] Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. c. 272 § 32 (Supp. 1969) "Whoever, as owner, manager, director, agent or in any other capacity, prepares, advertises, gives, presents or participates in any lewd, obscene, indecent, immoral or impure show or entertainment, or in any show or entertainment…”

Essex Theatre Corp. v. Police Comm'r, 310 N.E.2d 329 (Mass. 1974). · cites it 5× “The plaintiff filed a bill in equity for declaratory relief against the police commissioner of the city of Boston seeking a declaration that three named motion pictures were not obscene and that their exhibition was protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the…”

Acevedo v. State, 633 S.W.2d 856 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). “The following codes and proposals provide a general exemption for people acting within the scope of their employment: Idaho Code § 18-4102 (C); La.”

Commonwealth v. Lotten Books, Inc., 428 N.E.2d 145 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). “The individual defendant does not contend that Lotten bookstore is a “motion picture theatre” so as to bring him within the exemption of G. L. c. 272, § 32, as appearing in St. 1974, c.”

Commonwealth v. Bono, 384 N.E.2d 1260 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). “We also think that the judge was right in rejecting the further ground advanced in the defendant Bono’s motion to dismiss: that the exemption from prosecution under § 29 of certain employees of motion picture theaters by G. L. c. 272, § 32, deprived Bono, an employee of a book…”

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.