MA · rules
Mass. R. Civ. P. 78
Motion day
Rule 78
The court shall establish regular times and places, at intervals sufficiently frequent for the prompt dispatch of business, at which motions requiring notice and hearing may be heard and disposed of; but a judge at any time or place and on such notice, if any, as he considers reasonable may make orders for the advancement, conduct, and hearing of such motions.
To expedite its business, the court may provide by order for the submission and determination of motions without oral hearing upon brief written statements of reasons in support and opposition.
The court may require the filing of briefs, in such form and within such time as it may direct.
History
Reporter's notes (1973) The first paragraph of Rule 78 generalizes what are essentially housekeeping details in Super.Ct. Rules 62, 64 and 66 and includes a provision for flexibility governed by judicial discretion in allowing deviation from the established hearing procedure. This reservation of judicial discretion is similar to Super.Ct. Rule 47. See also, Worster v. Yeaton, 198 Mass. 335, 337, 84 N.E. 461, 462 (1908). The provision of Rule 78 calling for "brief written statements of reasons in support and opposition" is similar to the requirement of Super.Ct.Rule 46 and S.J.C.Rule 2:30 that matters of fact pertinent to decision on a motion be placed before the court by affidavit or other signed statement.
Provenance
- Source
- www.mass.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-17
- Edition
- 2026-09-16
- Content hash
78bbcc22286c674256e8b493e5d93520e5963465c2095de7640f688cc124ac2f
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.