Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2004 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Adamowicz v. Town of Ipswichgreen2 sentences2003See Adamowicz v. Ipswich, supra at 763 . 1996In Adamowicz v. Ipswich, 395 Mass. 757, 764 (1985), the court held that “compliance of a lot with the common ownership requirement [in § 6, par. 4] is determined by looking at the most recent instrument of record prior to the effective date of the zoning change from which the exemption is sought.” If a buyer bought vacant land (even if a building thereon had been previously demolished) and the by-law at the time of purchase permitted building on that lot, it would seem that the lot would have protection from a subsequent zoning change. | 2 | 2 |
Marinelli v. Board of Appealsgreen1 sentence2004Recently, however, in Marinelli v. Bd. of Appeals of Stoughton, the Supreme Judicial Court made it clear in dicta that the common ownership requirement of the second sentence of the fourth paragraph does not look to the January 1, 1976, date but, rather, is to be “determined by looking to record ownership at the time of the effective date of the zoning change.” Marínelli v. Bd. of Appeals of Stoughton, 440 Mass. 255, 260 (2003) (noting that the second sentence “describes the common ownership requirement in the past tense: ‘provided [that] . . . such lot was held in common ownership’ ”); citing | 1 | 1 |
Lynn Armbruster v. Terry Quinnred1 sentence1993See Armbruster, supra; Fike, supra; Mas Marques, supra. In our case, since two individuals own a number of companies there is common ownership. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kirby v. Board of Assessors of Medford
green
1 sentence1994The reasoning of Kirby v. Assessors of Medford, supra, compels a similar result here. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Diego MAS MARQUES, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, and Digital Equipment GmbH, Defendants, Appellees
green
1 sentence1993See Armbruster, supra; Fike, supra; Mas Marques, supra. In our case, since two individuals own a number of companies there is common ownership. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Leslie H. Baker, Jr. v. United States
green
1 sentence1993See Armbruster, supra; Fike, supra; Mas Marques, supra. In our case, since two individuals own a number of companies there is common ownership. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.