definite violation in Massachusetts

2024Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 491, 492-493 (1989) (plaintiff can acquire standing by "asserting a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest").

2023Defense Fund, Inc., 27 Mass. App. Ct. at 493 ("[M]atters, essentially involving the expression of aesthetic views and speculative opinions, do not establish a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, property interest, or legal interest sufficient to bring . . . plaintiffs within the zone of standing"), and while we acknowledge that the town bylaws call for the board to consider the "[c]ompatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land uses, so as to minimize harmful impact or conflict with existing desirable neighborhood character, including . . . aesthetic values" whe

2024L. c. 40A must assert a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right" (quotation omitted), Kenner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 459 Mass. 115, 120 (2011), not a public right.

2021Kenner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 459 Mass. 115 , 117 (2011); Marshalian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719 , 721 (1996). [Note 1] Courts have interpreted the term "person aggrieved" as one who can assert "a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest that is separate and distinct from the concerns of the general community." Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 491 , 493 (1989).

2007Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 491, 493 (1989); See Barvenik v. Board of Aldermen, 33 Mass.App.Ct. 129, 132-33 (1992). “[M]atters essentially involving the expression of aesthetic views and speculative opinions, do not establish a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, properly interest, or legal interest sufficient to bring any of the plaintiffs within the zone of standing.” Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass.App.Ct. at 493 .

1998See Barvenik v. Aldermen of Newton, 33 Mass.App.Ct. at 132 -33 & n.9. 5 Mr. McKeon’s speculative opinions do not establish a “plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, property interest, or legal interest sufficient to bring [the McKeons] within the zone of standing.” Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Board of Cambridge, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 491, 493 (1989).

2001In the context of G.L.c. 40A, standing is defined as “a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or private legal interest.” Bell v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Gloucester, 429 Mass. 551, 554 (1999), quoting Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 491, 493 (1989).

2001But the plaintiff must offer “evidence of ‘a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest,’ ” Bell v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Gloucester, 429 Mass. at 554 , quoting from Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 491, 493 (1989), that is different from that suffered by the community generally.

2021To be a "party aggrieved" (and as noted earlier, "parties in interest" are presumed to have such aggrievement), the individual must "assert 'a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest."" Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. 20 , 27 (2006), quoting Harvard Sq.

2021Courts have described a person aggrieved as one who "suffers some infringement of his legal rights," [Note 3] who has "a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest" which right or interest is "one that the statute under which a plaintiff claims aggrievement intends to protect." Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. 20 , 27-28 (2006) (citations omitted).

2021Kenner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 459 Mass. 115 , 117 (2011); Marshalian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719 , 721 (1996). [Note 1] Courts have interpreted the term "person aggrieved" as one who can assert "a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest that is separate and distinct from the concerns of the general community." Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 491 , 493 (1989).

2009See Marshalian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719, 921-22 (1996); see also Harvard Square Def. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 491, 492 (1989) (holding that the “[i]ndividual of corporate property owners acquire standing by asserting a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest”).

2025See Opinion of the Justices, 378 Mass. 822, 827 (1979) (if statute "conveys a definite warning of proscribed conduct -- when measured by common understanding and practices -- it is constitutionally adequate").

1984As so limited, the first question and the second question are substantially the same, namely, whether the imposition of criminal penalties for discrimination based on “sexual preference” lacks sufficient definiteness to meet the requirement of art. 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of the Commonwealth 2 that any stated criminal sanction convey “a definite warning of proscribed conduct — when measured by common understand ing and practices.” Opinions of the Justices, 378 Mass. 822, 827 (1979).

2001The requirement of injury to a personal legal-right compels a showing of “injury [which] is special and different from the concerns of the rest of the community.” Id., quoting Barvenik v. Board of Aldermen of Newton, 33 Mass.App.Ct. 129, 132 (1992); see Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427, 432 (1949) (“violation of law commonly gives rise to no private right of action unless there is also violation of some private right or duty”); see also Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719, 721-23 (1996).

1993See also Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427, 430 (1949); Waltham Motor Inn, Inc. v. LaCava, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 210, 214 (1975); Prudential Ins.

2005See also Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 491, 493 (1989) (to establish standing plaintiff must make “a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest”); Jaffe v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newton, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 929, 930 (1993).

1994See Jaffe v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 34 Mass.App.Ct. 929, 931 (1993) (neighbor’s unsupported “expression of belief’ that his property value would diminish, combined with his statement of existing “facts” based on “personal knowledge,” including increase in pedestrian traffic, sufficient to defeat motion for summary judgment based on challenge of “aggrieved” standing).

1993See also Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427, 430 (1949); Waltham Motor Inn, Inc. v. LaCava, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 210, 214 (1975); Prudential Ins.

1984See Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427, 430-431 (1949); Amherst Growth Study Comm. v. Board of Appeals of Amherst, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 826, 827 (1973); Waltham Motor Inn, Inc. v. LaCava, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 210, 213-214 (1975); Redstone v. Board of Appeals of Chelmsford, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 383, 385 (1981).

1984See Commonwealth v. Bohmer, 374 Mass. 368, 372 (1978); Commonwealth v. Jarrett, 359 Mass. 491, 496-497 (1971); Commonwealth v. Slome, 321 Mass. 713, 715 (1947).

1979Commonwealth v. Jarrett, 359 Mass. 491, 496-497 (1971).

2005“Individual or corporate property owners acquire standing [as a person aggrieved] by asserting a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest.” Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc., 27 Mass.App.Ct. at 492-93 ; see also Green v. Board of Appeals of Provincetown, 404 Mass. 571, 573 (1989) (noting that the word “aggrieved” has the same meaning throughout the Zoning Act).

1989However, “only a limited class of individuals — those whose property interests will be affected — is given the standing to challenge the board’s exercise of its discretion.” Green v. Board of Appeals of Provincetown, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 469, 479 (1988), S.C., 404 Mass. 571 (1989). 4 Individual or corporate property owners acquire stand *493 ing by asserting a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest.

2014Comm’n, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 571, 574 (1981), and characterized the Act as being “concerned with the visual appearance of things.” And when a zoning ordinance demands consideration of the visual impact of a proposed structure on a neighborhood, “in order for a[n] [allegedly aggrieved person] to establish standing based on the impairment of an interest protected by [the] zoning bylaw, [that person] would need to show a particularized harm to [her] own property and a detrimental impact on the neighborhood’s visual character.” Kenner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 459 Mass. 115, 121 (2011).

1994Cummings v. City Council of Gloucester, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 345, 349 (1990); see also Harvard Square Defense Fund Inc. v. Planning Board of Cambridge, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 491, 493 (1989) (standing may be established by showing of “a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest”).

1992Utils., 368 Mass. 599, 605 (1975).

1989See Shriners’ Hosp. for Crippled Children v. Boston Redevelopment Authy., 4 Mass. App. Ct. 551, 555 (1976); Prudential Ins.

1989However, “only a limited class of individuals — those whose property interests will be affected — is given the standing to challenge the board’s exercise of its discretion.” Green v. Board of Appeals of Provincetown, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 469, 479 (1988), S.C., 404 Mass. 571 (1989). 4 Individual or corporate property owners acquire stand *493 ing by asserting a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest.

1984See Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427, 430-431 (1949); Amherst Growth Study Comm. v. Board of Appeals of Amherst, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 826, 827 (1973); Waltham Motor Inn, Inc. v. LaCava, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 210, 213-214 (1975); Redstone v. Board of Appeals of Chelmsford, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 383, 385 (1981).

1984See Commonwealth v. Bohmer, 374 Mass. 368, 372 (1978); Commonwealth v. Jarrett, 359 Mass. 491, 496-497 (1971); Commonwealth v. Slome, 321 Mass. 713, 715 (1947).