Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94A, § 21 (2026)

Review; jurisdiction of superior court; injunction; declaratory judgment

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 21. Any person aggrieved by any order, rule or regulation adopted by, or other decision of, the commissioner may, by petition filed within twenty days after the publication or service of such order, rule, regulation or decision, obtain a review by the superior court of the proceedings of the commissioner on which such order, rule, regulation or decision was based. A copy of such petition, attested by the clerk of the court, shall be forthwith served upon the commissioner. The petitioner shall file in the court a transcript of the entire record in the proceedings, certified by the commissioner, including the notice, the testimony received and the findings and order or decision of the commissioner. The order, rule, regulation or decision of the commissioner shall be reviewed in accordance with the standards for review provided in paragraph (7) of section fourteen of chapter thirty A. No objection not urged before the commissioner shall be considered in review. The court may, in its discretion, remit the record to the commissioner for the correction of errors or for the taking of additional evidence. Prior to the entry of a decree of revision or reversal, no order shall be made to stay or supersede any order, rule, regulation or decision of the commissioner, nor shall any court in any proceeding restrain or enjoin the commissioner or restrain or enjoin enforcement of an order, rule, regulation or decision adopted by the commissioner, except after a hearing of which the commissioner shall have received not less than two days' notice in writing.

Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, a person aggrieved by the adoption of a regulation as defined in clause (5) of section one of chapter thirty A may elect alternative judicial review of such regulation through a proceeding for declaratory relief in the same manner and to the extent provided under chapter two hundred and thirty-one A.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1959–1992 · leading case: New England Milk Dealers Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Food & Agric., 22 Mass. App. Ct. 705 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

New England Milk Dealers Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Food & Agric., 22 Mass. App. Ct. 705 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 9× “Under G. L. c. 94A, § 21, as appearing in St. 1983, c.”

Norwood Ice Co. v. Milk Control Comm'n, 155 N.E.2d 758 (Mass. 1959). · cites it 4× “G. L. c. 94A, § 21. A judge in the Superior Court made findings and ruled that there had been a procedural error, and entered an order that the order and decision of the commission are invalid and should be reversed.”

City of Newton v. Dep't of Pub. Utils., 160 N.E.2d 108 (Mass. 1959). “See also Davis, Administrative Law (1958 ed.) §§ 22.01-22.18 esp. §§ 22.”

Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Milk Control Comm'n, 166 N.E.2d 356 (Mass. 1960). “G. L. c. 94A, § 21. In May of 1958, the commission received a petition under G.”

Dacey v. Milk Control Comm'n, 166 N.E.2d 362 (Mass. 1960). “Dacey, claiming to be aggrieved by amendment 1, brought this petition for review under G. L. c. 94A, § 21. Cumberland Farms, Inc.”

New England Milk Dealers Ass'n v. Dep't of Food & Agric., 600 N.E.2d 1004 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992). · cites it 2× “When the department adopted and then extended a milk price control order, the association brought a petition for judicial review pursuant to G. L. c. 94A, § 21. It claims that the orders are regulations and that the Department, in adopting them, failed to comply with G.”

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.