Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 37, § 11 (2026)

Duties of sheriffs and deputies; service of precepts

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 11. Sheriffs and their deputies shall serve and execute, within their counties, all precepts lawfully issued to them and all other process required by law to be served by an officer. They may serve process in cases wherein a county, city, town, parish, religious society or fire or other district is a party or interested, although they are inhabitants or members thereof.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1991–2010 · leading case: Harvard Crimson, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 840 N.E.2d 518 (Mass. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Harvard Crimson, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 840 N.E.2d 518 (Mass. 2006). “The Crimson’s contention that documents in the custody of the HUPD have become “public records” because some HUPD officers have been appointed deputy sheriffs in Middlesex and Suffolk counties, thereby conferring on them the status of public employees, is equally unavailing.”

Commonwealth v. Leet, 585 A.2d 1033 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). · cites it 2× “1989)); Massachusetts (Mass.Gen.L. ch. 37 § 11 (1985) and ch. 276 § 28 (1972 & Supp.”

Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 924 N.E.2d 709 (Mass. 2010). “See G. L. c. 37, § 11. This claim was first made in the Commonwealth’s posthearing supplementary memorandum filed with the trial court.”

Bergeron v. Cabral, 535 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Mass. 2008). “Cabral argues that the decommissioning had no impact whatsoever on the terms and conditions of plaintiffs’ employment as jail officers.”

Teschke v. Keller, 650 N.E.2d 1279 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995). “Deputy sheriffs are empowered by G. L. c. 37, § 11, to serve all precepts and process “required by law to be served by an officer.”

Commonwealth v. Baez, 678 N.E.2d 1335 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997). “” In addition, G. L. c. 37, § 11 (1994 ed.), states that, “Sheriffs and their deputies shall serve and execute, within their counties, all precepts lawfully issued to them and all other process required by law to be served by an officer.”

Hannam v. Worcester Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 477 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2006). “In accordance with G.L.c. 37, §11, Hannam, as deputy sheriff, collected fees for the serving of civil process.”

Jackpot Provision Co. v. DiPaola, 2006 Mass. App. Div. 102 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2006). “See G.L.c. 37, §11 and G.L.c. 220, §7. Deputy Lamb’s protection against liability is dependent upon the authority he was given by the Boston Municipal Court order.”

Coxall v. Nichols, 1992 Mass. App. Div. 146 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1992). “It is certainly true that defendant Gonfrade, as a Deputy Sheriff of Middlesex County, was authorized under G.L.c. 37, §11 and G.L.c. 224, §23 to serve precepts, including the capias in question.”

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.