Arsenault v. City of Peabody, 378 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978). · Go Syfert
Arsenault v. City of Peabody, 378 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“to show a resulting trust, the wife must show that she paid an aliquot share of the purchase price.”
11 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Real Property, Buildings, Appurtenances & Improvements (mad, 2000-01-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Real Property, Buildings, Appurtenances & Improvements
D. Mass. · 2000 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
to show a resulting trust, the wife must show that she paid an aliquot share of the purchase price.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Costa v. Fall River Housing Authority
Mass. App. Ct. · 2008 · confidence medium
Co., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 227, 228 (1977); Bartula v. Bartula, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 907, 907 (1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. Mills
Mass. App. Ct. · 1992 · confidence medium
Compare Williams v. Commercial Trust Co., 276 Mass. 508, 517 (1931) (all funds expended came from “money belonging to or credit lent to” one party); Gerace v. Gerace, 301 Mass. 14, 18 (1938) (party signed mortgage as a convenience — no obligation to pay — deemed “a loan of credit”); Saulnier v. Saulnier, 328 Mass. 238, 240 (1952) (only the party that was “primarily liable” on mortgage “paid anything”); Bartula v. Bartula, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 907, 908 (1978) (husband alone signed mortgage, but wife also assumed the obligation of the mortgage and contributed to payments made tow…
cited Cited "see" Feinman v. Lombardo
D. Mass. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bartula v. Bartula, 6 Mass.App.Ct. 907, 908 , 378 N.E.2d 466, 469 (1978).
discussed Cited "see" Bertone v. Department of Public Utilities
Mass. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arsenault v. Peabody, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 907 (1978) (municipal power plant’s use of fuel adjustment clause that provides for fluctuations in unit costs of electricity according to changes in fuel prices held to be a fixed rate within the meaning of G.
discussed Cited "see" Roche v. Roche (2×)
Mass. App. Ct. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bartula v. Bartula, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 907, 908 (1978).
cited Cited "see" Johnson v. Zingarelli
Mass. App. Ct. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bartula v. Bar-tula, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 907, 908 (1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edward J. Arsenault & another
v.
City of Peabody (and a companion case)
Massachusetts Appeals Court.
Jul 25, 1978.
378 N.E.2d 706
Philip Litman for the plaintiffs., Maurice J. Ferriter for the defendant.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 62%
Citer courts: D. Massachusetts (1)

In view of the plaintiffs’ concession (contrary to the position originally taken by them in the Superior Court) that G. L. c. 164, § 94G, has no application to a municipal power plant such as that operated by the defendant (see Gas & Elec. Commrs. of Middleborough v. Department of Pub. Util., 363 Mass. 433, 437-438 [1973]), the only remaining legal issue raised by these cases appears to be whether the defendant’s use of a fuel adjustment clause, pursuant to which the unit cost of electricity may fluctuate (and has fluctuated) from month to month with fluctuations in the cost of fuel used in the production of electricity sold to customers, violates the provisions of G. L. c. 164, § 58, as amended by St. 1964, c. 401, which require that changes in the "fixed schedules of prices for gas and electricity” furnished by a municipality shall not occur more often than once in three months, shall take effect on the first day of a month, and shall first be advertised in a newspaper published in the municipality. On the authority of Consumers Organization for Fair Energy Equality v. Department of Pub. Util., 368 Mass. 599, 605-608 (1975), we hold that it does not. Several other issues which have been tentatively raised at various stages in these proceedings have been waived, either in this court or in the Superior Court, or depend on facts not established by the records in these cases.

Judgments affirmed.