Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 45 (2026)

Reimbursement for defense expenses

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 45. An aggrieved individual who has prevailed in any appeal brought under this chapter shall be reimbursed by the local appointing authority or, if aggrieved by action or inaction of a state official, by the comptroller of the commonwealth, the following expenditures: (i) the filing fee paid to the commission; (ii) an amount not to exceed $1,500 for attorneys' fees actually incurred in conjunction with each of the following: (A) an appointing authority hearing; (B) a hearing before the commission; and (C) an action for judicial review pursuant to section 44; and (iii) an amount not to exceed $500 for summons to witnesses and any other expenses actually incurred in such successful appeal. In addition to the amounts stated above, the commission may award such additional reasonable attorneys' fees and costs up to $25,000 to an appellant who prevails in an appeal brought under this chapter, upon an express finding of either bad faith on the part of the appointing authority or an egregious or willfully repeated violation of this chapter, unless special circumstances would render such additional award unjust.

Any person seeking such reimbursement shall file with his appointing authority a written application therefor within thirty days after final disposition of his case. The appointing authority shall, within thirty days after receipt of such application, pay such reimbursement from the same source as that from which the salary of the person seeking the reimbursement is paid, but only upon receipt of satisfactory proof that such expenses were actually incurred for the purposes set forth in this section.

Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall not be counted in the computation of any time period specified in this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 37 cases, 1923–2014 · leading case: Commissioners of Civil Serv. v. Mun. Court, 337 N.E.2d 682 (Mass. 1975).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commissioners of Civil Serv. v. Mun. Court, 337 N.E.2d 682 (Mass. 1975). · cites it 7× “Scevola brought a petition in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston pursuant to G. L. c. 31, § 45, seeking review of the decision of the commission.”

Comm'r of Revenue v. Lawrence, 396 N.E.2d 992 (Mass. 1979). · cites it 4× “Lawrence then filed a petition for judicial review of the commission’s decision in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston, pursuant to G. L. c. 31, § 45. 5 A judge of that court heard oral arguments from the parties on January 8, 1977.”

Police Comm'r v. Mun. Court of the West Roxbury Dist., 332 N.E.2d 901 (Mass. 1975). · cites it 4× “Review of the commission’s decision took place in the Municipal Court of the West Roxbury District under G. L. c. 31, § 45, as appearing in St. 1970, c.”

Fernandes v. Attleboro Hous. Auth., 20 N.E.3d 229 (Mass. 2014). “G. L. c. 31, § 45. In essence, G. L. c. 121B, § 29, affords housing authority employees, like Fernandes, the protections of the civil service system.”

Murray v. Second Dist. Court of E. Middlesex, 451 N.E.2d 408 (Mass. 1983). “The plaintiff then filed a petition for judicial review in a District Court, pursuant to G. L. c. 31, § 45, as appearing in St. 1970, c.”

Sullivan v. Dist. Court of Hampshire, 429 N.E.2d 335 (Mass. 1981). “The plaintiff then filed a complaint in the District Court of Hampshire seeking review of the commission’s decision pursuant to G. L. c. 31, § 45. The District Court judge found prejudicial error in certain of the hearing officer’s rulings and remanded the case for the taking of…”

McLaughlin v. Mayor of Cambridge, 148 N.E. 458 (Mass. 1925). · cites it 2× “624, as amended, now G. L. c. 31, § 45, he cannot maintain a petition for mandamus unless it appears that the remedy so given is not adequate.”

Commissioners of Civil Serv. v. Mun. Court, 338 N.E.2d 829 (Mass. 1975). · cites it 3× “” Thereupon the respondent filed in the Municipal Court his petition under G. L. c. 31, § 45, to review the action of the Civil Service Commission.”

Bd. of Selectmen v. Third Dist. Court, 269 N.E.2d 449 (Mass. 1971). · cites it 3× “Stebenne then filed a petition with the District Court under G. L. c. 31, § 45, for review of the decision of the board and the commission.”

Mayor v. Judge of First Dist. Court, 249 Mass. 465 (Mass. 1924). “In the words of G. L. c. 31, § 45, it is a “ review ” of the action of the removing officer or board, aild the judge is required to “ affirm the decision of the officer or board unless it shall appear that it was made without proper cause or in bad faith.”

MacKenzie v. Sch. Comm. of Ipswich, 174 N.E.2d 657 (Mass. 1961). “in civil service cases, and which have been held not to involve a transfer of executive power to the courts. General Laws, c.”

Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Court of E. Middlesex, 160 N.E. 427 (Mass. 1928). “If the court is unable to make such affirmative finding, that is, if on all the evidence his mind is in an even balance or inclines to the view that such action was not justified, then the decision under review must be reversed. The review must be conducted with the underlying…”

Show all 37 citing cases →

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 45(1) — 1 case

Mendonca v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 23 N.E.3d 108 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014).

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.