[Disclaimer]
Any court whose procedure is regulated in whole or in part by these rules may from time to time make and amend supplemental rules, or continue in force existing rules, governing its procedure not inconsistent with these rules. In instances not provided for by rule, each said court may regulate its practice in a manner not inconsistent with these rules and the said supplemental rules.
Adopted June 27, 1974, effective July 1, 1974.
Reporter's Notes
(1996) Rule 83, which had been "reserved" in the Dist./Mun.Cts.R.Civ.P., is now applicable in the District Court as result of the merger of the District Court civil rules into the Mass.R.Civ.P. in 1996.
(1994) This rule permits the promulgation of supplemental rules by courts whose procedure is governed by these rules. However, the provisions of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure will prevail whenever there is inconsistency between them and supplemental rules or standing orders. See Sullivan v. Iantosca, 409 Mass. 796, 801 (1991).
It should be noted, however, that a supplemental rule containing a time period shorter than that set out in the rules of civil procedure is not necessarily inconsistent with the rules of civil procedure. For example, where a Superior Court rule required that affidavits in opposition to a motion for summary judgment be filed within ten days after service of the summary judgment motion, the Appeals Court noted that "[t]rial court rules 'more demanding than the requirements of Rule 56 . . . are not necessarily inconsistent with the general provisions' in the rule [allowing the filing of counter-affidavits prior to the hearing day]." Ruggiero v. Costa, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 967, 968 (1990), citing 10A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2719, at 13 (1983). See also 12 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3153 (1973) (citing federal cases interpreting similar language in Federal Rule 83).
