Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 79, § 22 (2026)

Pleading and procedure; entry of judgment

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 22. A complaint brought under section fourteen shall name all parties adversely interested who are known to the petitioner, and process shall issue and service be made in accordance with the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. Any defense to the petition not relating to the amount of damages shall be pleaded within thirty days after the service of process; provided that no answer relating solely to the amount of damages shall be filed by any party and no person shall be defaulted for failure to enter an appearance. All matters pertaining to the litigation shall be heard by a judge in the superior court department, and there shall be one trial before a jury, unless all parties waive trial by jury and file a written agreement requesting a trial without a jury. Interrogatories may be filed with the same effect as in other civil actions. In case of trial by jury, if either party requests it, the jury shall view the premises. Judgment shall be entered and execution issued as in other civil actions, except that if final judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff against the commonwealth for damages, the clerk of the superior court for the county where such judgment is entered shall, within seven days after the final disposition of the case and the expiration of all rights to appeal therefrom, transmit a certified copy of the docket entries and a certificate of such judgment showing the amount due from the commonwealth, to the comptroller who shall notify the governor. The governor shall draw his warrant for such amount on the state treasurer, who shall pay the same, with such interest as is authorized by section thirty-seven.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases, 1925–2001 · leading case: North Shore Realty Trust v. Commonwealth, 747 N.E.2d 107 (Mass. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

North Shore Realty Trust v. Commonwealth, 747 N.E.2d 107 (Mass. 2001). · cites it 2× “Similarly, the reference to interest, but not to costs, in G. L. c. 79, § 22, does not suggest that the Legislature intended a change from the established procedure of awarding costs against the Commonwealth in eminent domain cases.”

Mulhern v. Roach, 494 N.E.2d 1327 (Mass. 1986). · cites it 2× “See G.L.c. 79, § 22, as appearing in St. 1973, c.”

Haufler v. Commonwealth, 362 N.E.2d 916 (Mass. 1977). · cites it 4× “In this eminent domain case we conclude that the Commonwealth is not now entitled to appellate review of a Superior Court judge’s ruling which excluded certain evidence in a trial before him without jury and that, in the normal course, a party to such a proceeding must wait…”

Roach v. Newton Redevelopment Auth., 407 N.E.2d 1251 (Mass. 1980). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to G. L. c. 79, § 22, this eminent domain case was tried twice in the Superior Court, first before a judge without a jury (the first judge) and second before a judge and a jury.”

Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Sandwich Water Dist., 454 N.E.2d 514 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983). · cites it 3× “A second source, introduced by the plaintiff, was the finding of the judge sitting without jury in a prior trial (see G. L. c. 79, § 22, as appearing in St. 1973, c.”

Boston Redevelopment Auth. v. Doherty, 345 N.E.2d 376 (Mass. 1976). · cites it 8× “The second motion assigned as the reason therefor the “lack of power in the Court to refer eminent domain actions to Masters for hearing in view of [G. L. c. 79, § 22] as amended by [St. 1973, c.”

Salem Realty Co. v. Matera, 410 N.E.2d 716 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). “G. L. c. 79, § 22, as appearing in St. 1973, c.”

Nicklas v. City of New Bedford, 146 N.E. 41 (Mass. 1925). · cites it 3× “” If the entire damage to the estate be assumed to be correct, it is not contended that the apportionment between the estates as a fact does not accurately represent the damage to each estate.”

Barnes v. City of Springfield, 168 N.E. 78 (Mass. 1929). “257, § 187, (see now G. L. c. 79, § 22,) first required an answer to be filed in this kind of action, and created a new section relating to procedure.”

Roach v. Newton Redevelopment Auth., 396 N.E.2d 170 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). “2 G. L. c. 79, § 22, appearing in St. 1973, c.”

Broadhurst v. Dir. of the Div. of Emp. Sec., 373 Mass. 720 (Mass. 1977). “In Woodworth , at 230, the court noted that the General Elec, decision was largely based on an interpretation of G. L. c. 79, §§ 22, 37, and G. L. c. 258, § 3, which did not at that time provide for awards of interest to be assessed against the Commonwealth in eminent domain…”

R. H. White Realty Co. v. Boston Redevelopment Auth., 358 N.E.2d 440 (Mass. 1976). “Under G. L. c. 79, § 22, judgment is to be entered and execution issued in eminent domain cases “as in actions at law.”

Show all 25 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.