Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title III Chapter 30
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30, § 14 (2026)

Approval of bond; withholding commission

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

Section 14. If a bond is required of any person appointed to office by the governor with or without the advice and consent of the council, the commission shall not issue until the bond has been approved.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Goldberg v. Bd. of Health, 444 Mass. 627 (Mass. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Goldberg v. Bd. of Health, 444 Mass. 627 (Mass. 2005). “We assume without deciding, as the judge must have, that as close neighbors of the landfill, who complained of the negative impacts of an enlarged landfill on their health and property, the plaintiffs were “aggrieved” for purposes of G.”
Boston Gas Co. v. Dep't of Telecomm. & Energy, 436 Mass. 233 (Mass. 2002). “Because the department failed to offer any reason for the determination that the accumulated inefficiencies factor should be equal to the company’s proposéd consumer dividend, we find that the department’s quantification of the accumulated inefficiencies factor is not supported…”
Bd. of Appeals v. Hous. Appeals Comm., 887 N.E.2d 1051 (Mass. 2008). “The board’s principal contention on appeal is that the committee exceeded it statutory authority when it revised the conditions imposed by the board, increasing the approved project size from 300 units to 540 units, after finding that the board’s conditions did not make the…”
Wilczewski v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Env't Quality Eng'g, 404 Mass. 787 (Mass. 1989). “This doctrine applies to an action under G. L. c. 30, § 14, resort to which by its express terms is only available after “a final decision of any agency in an adjudicatory proceeding.”
Stow Mun. Elec. Dep't v. Dep't of Pub. Utils., 688 N.E.2d 1337 (Mass. 1997). “856, 867-868 (1997) (MIT), citing G. L. c. 30, § 14 (7). “General Laws c. 25, § 5, allocates to [the plaintiffs] the burden of proving such error.”
266 Border LLC v. Off. of Coastal Zone Mgmt. Within the Exec. Off. of Energy & Environmentalaffairs (Mass. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “" -------------------------------------------- [18] Plaintiffs cite U.S. Gypsum, in which the Appeals Court reviewed a DPA boundary designation by OCZM under the substantial evidence standard associated with G.”
Northcarolina v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 102 N.E.3d 429 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). “After considering the parties' submissions, a hearing officer concluded that there existed a reasonable basis to support the charge.”
Marc Savage v. City of Springfield & Others. (Mass. App. Ct. 2024). “31, § 22, sets a time limit (seven 3 The CSC did not decide whether the plaintiff was an "aggrieved person" such that he could maintain the appeal, but rather based its ruling on the timing of his filing.”
John Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 523735 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd.. (Mass. App. Ct. 2024). “See G. L. c. 30, § 14 (7). We 4 Finally, Doe also argues that, were we to find that factor 2 should not have applied, the rest of the factors cannot support a level three classification.”
Kearns v. State Bd. of Ret., 977 N.E.2d 100 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012). “Further, in accord with the standards of G. L. c. 30, § 14(7), we “give due weight to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency, as well as to the discretionary authority conferred upon it.”
Ford v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 12 Mass. L. Rptr. 577 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2001). “DISCUSSION A reviewing court may set aside an administrative decision if it finds that the substantial rights of a party may have been prejudiced because the decision is defective under G.”
Healy v. CRAB, 12 Mass. L. Rptr. 687 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2001). “30A, §14. DISCUSSION A reviewing court may set aside an administrative decision if it finds that the substantial rights of a party may have been prejudiced because the decision is defective under G.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30, § 14(7) — 9 cases
Northcarolina v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 102 N.E.3d 429 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). “After considering the parties' submissions, a hearing officer concluded that there existed a reasonable basis to support the charge.”
Kearns v. State Bd. of Ret., 977 N.E.2d 100 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012). “Further, in accord with the standards of G. L. c. 30, § 14(7), we “give due weight to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency, as well as to the discretionary authority conferred upon it.”
Ford v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 12 Mass. L. Rptr. 577 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2001). “DISCUSSION A reviewing court may set aside an administrative decision if it finds that the substantial rights of a party may have been prejudiced because the decision is defective under G.”
Healy v. CRAB, 12 Mass. L. Rptr. 687 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2001). “30A, §14. DISCUSSION A reviewing court may set aside an administrative decision if it finds that the substantial rights of a party may have been prejudiced because the decision is defective under G.”
Tyler v. Sudders, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 421 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002).
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.