Section 2. A person aggrieved by such order may appeal to the superior court for the county where such building or other structure is situated, if, within three days after the service of such attested copy upon him, he commences a civil action in such court. Trial by jury shall be had as in other civil causes. The jury may affirm, annul or alter such order, and the court shall render judgment in conformity with said verdict, which shall take effect as an original order. If the order is affirmed, the plaintiff shall pay the costs; if it is annulled, he shall recover from the town his damages, if any, and costs; and if it is altered, the court may render such judgment as to costs as justice shall require. All proceedings hereunder authorized by section ten of chapter one hundred and forty-three, after issue is joined therein, shall be in order for trial and shall have precedence over any case of a different nature pending in said court and then in order for trial.
Notes of Decisions
Vigorito v. City of Chelsea, 124 N.E.3d 699 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 6× “See G. L. c. 139, § 2. Under § 2, "[t]he owner must commence a civil action in superior court within three days after the service of the challenged order.”
Gallant v. City of Fitchburg, 739 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D. Mass. 2010).
· cites it 5× “(authorizing an aggrieved owned to initiate a civil action under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 139, § 2 ); see 780 C.”
City of Worcester v. Eisenbeiser, 387 N.E.2d 1154 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979).
· cites it 2× “After receiving notice of the demolition order Eisenbeiser, pursuant to G. L. c. 139, § 2, filed a timely complaint in the Superior Court, appealing the order and claiming a trial by jury.”
Silverblatt v. Livadas, 164 N.E.2d 875 (Mass. 1960).
“541, § 4, provides that an owner aggrieved by an order of a building inspector may appeal to the Superior Court for a trial by jury under G. L. c. 139, § 2 (as amended through St.”
Bryant v. City of Boston, 417 N.E.2d 30 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981).
“(3) The procedures followed by the city were not invalidated by its failure to comply with the provisions of G. L. c. 139, § 2, or G. L. c. 143, § 10.”
Kalman v. Bd. of Aldermen, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 904 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982).
“See G. L. c. 139, § 2. Therefore, the allowance by the judge of the defendants’ motion to dismiss based, in part, on Mass.”
Aubuchon v. Massachusetts ex rel. State Bldg. Code Appeals Bd., 933 F. Supp. 90 (D. Mass. 1996).
· cites it 2× “See M.G.L. c. 139, § 2. Inasmuch as plaintiff has, in fact, filed a separate (and ongoing) civil action in the Superior Court pursuant to the remedial statute, the post-deprivation remedy afforded by M.”
Aubuchon v. Mass. Build. Code Appels Bd., 933 F. Supp. 90 (D. Mass. 1996).
· cites it 2× “See M.G.L. c. 139, § 2. Inasmuch as plaintiff has, in fact, filed a separate (and ongoing) civil action in the Superior Court pursuant to the remedial statute, the post-deprivation remedy afforded by M.”
Berger v. City of Quincy, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 964 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982).
“143, § 10, and G. L. c. 139, § 2. We also reject the defendants’ rather anomalous claim that the plaintiffs’ action insofar as it sought damages in excess of the amount awarded pursuant to G.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.