Durbin v. Board of Selectmen (2004)

green · 43 citation events across 4 courts. Showing the 18 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 18

Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

200420152026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Wynn v. Rudack (2009)

Rule Authority · Mass. Super. Ct. · 8 citations in this opinion

But their loyalty to their owners is incredible.” Id. at 17.

green Seales v. Boston Housing Authority (2015)

Rule Authority · Mass. App. Ct. · 3 citations in this opinion

“In the absence of substantial legal error, we review the record to determine whether that decision was supported by substantial evidence.” Durbin v. Selectmen of Kingston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2004). 7 In reviewing an appeal of a decision in a certiorari proceeding, the reviewing court may not make de novo determinations or draw different inferences from the facts, make different judgments as to witness credibility, or disturb a choice made between conflicting inferences…

green Bonacci v. McCabe (2006)

Rule Authority · Mass. Super. Ct. · 3 citations in this opinion

Certiorari review encompasses only those errors “which have resulted in manifest injustice to the plaintiff or which have adversely affected the real interests of the general public.” Durbin v. Board of Selectmen, Kingston, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 5 (2004), quoting Murray v. Second Dist Ct. of E.

green Maynard Retirement Board v. Justices of Concord Division (2011)

Quote Authority · Mass. Super. Ct. · 2 citations in this opinion

Durbin v. Board of Selectmen of Kingston, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 1 , 4 n.5 (2004) (“In a certiorari proceeding, the pleadings contain the record on the basis of which the reviewing court decides the case”).

“In a certiorari proceeding, the pleadings contain the record on the basis of which the reviewing court decides the case”

green Shannon O'Brien v. Deborah Goldberg (2025)

Rule Authority · Mass. Super. Ct.

Substantial evidence is "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Durbin v. Selectmen of Kingston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 6 (2004).

green WINDROCK TRUST COMPANY, LLC, Trustee v. JONATHAN HEDLUND & Others. (2025)

Rule Authority · Mass. App. Ct.

Durbin v. Selectmen of Kingston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2004), quoting Cambridge Hous.

green Scruggs v. Town of Lexington Conservation Commission (2013)

Rule Authority · Mass. Super. Ct.

Durbin v. Board of Selectmen of Kingston, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 4-6 (2004). 3.Application of the Law to the Commission’s Decision Plaintiffs suggest that the Commission made a substantial error of law, which is apparent on the face of the record: the Commission applied the wrong subsection of the Lexington Wetland Bylaw §130-2, and permitted the Stewards to obtain the wrong type of approval from the Commission.

green McShea v. Town of Westford (2011)

Rule Authority · Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Durbin v. Board of Selectmen of Kingston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2004).

green Giragosian v. Chief of Police of Arlington (2010)

Rule Authority · Mass. App. Ct.

The scope of review is limited to “errors of law apparent on the record.” Durbin v. Selectmen of Kingston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 4 (2004).

green Higby/Fulton Vineyard, LLC v. Board of Health of Tisbury (2007)

Rule Authority · Mass. App. Ct.

Authy. v. Auditor of the Commonwealth, 430 Mass. 783, 790 (2000); Teamsters Joint Council No. 10 v. Director of the Dept. of Labor & Workforce Dev., 447 Mass. 100, 106 (2006); Durbin v. Selectmen of Kingston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2004).

green Conte v. Town of Framingham (2007)

Rule Authority · Mass. Super. Ct.

Comm’n, 37 Mass.App.Ct. 587 , 588 n.4 (1994); this court therefore may not consider the affidavits dated August 21, 2007, from Richard Westcott, P.E. and Conte, where these were not before the Commission. 6 See also Police Commissioner of Boston v. Robinson, 47 Mass.App.Ct. 767, 775 (1999) (“on a writ of certiorari, the court’s review is confined to the record . . .”) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Durbin v. Board of Selectmen cf Kingston, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 9 …

the admission of extrinsic evidence is “contrary to certiorari practice and precedent”

green Bylinski v. Town of Douglas Board of Health (2006)

Rule Authority · Mass. Super. Ct.

Kingston, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 5-6 (2004), citingBiélawski v. Pers.

green Anderson v. Lam Builders, Inc. (2005)

Rule Authority · Mass. Super. Ct.

Durbin v. Board of Selectmen of Kingston, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 6 (2004).

green Revere Ret. Bd. v. Attorney Gen. (2018)

Cited · Mass. App. Ct. · signal: see

See Durbin v. Selectmen of Kingston , 62 Mass. App. Ct. 1 , 5-6 (2004).

green Mello Construction, Inc. v. Division of Capital Asset Management (2013)

Cited · Mass. App. Ct. · signal: see

See Durbin v. Selectmen of Kingston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 9 (2004).

green Santiago v. Russo (2010)

Cited · Mass. App. Ct. · signal: see

See Durbin v. Selectmen of Kingston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 6 (2004).

green Classic Suites & Inns, Inc. v. McCormick (2006)

Cited · Mass. Super. Ct. · signal: accord

Accord, Durbin v. Board of Selectmen, Kingston, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 5 (2004), quoting Murray v. Second Dist.

green Edward P. Clark Post, 107, American Legion, Inc. v. Town of Natick Board of Selectmen (2004)

Cited · Mass. Super. Ct. · signal: see

See Durbin v. Board of Selectmen of Kingston, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 4-5 (2004); G.L.c. 249, §4.