Section 7. Any person so notified shall be allowed until twelve o'clock noon of the day following the service of the notice in which to begin to remove such structure or make it safe, or to make it secure, and he shall employ sufficient labor speedily to make it safe or remove it or to make it secure; but if the public safety so requires and if the aldermen or selectmen so order, the inspector of buildings may immediately enter upon the premises with the necessary workmen and assistants and cause such unsafe structure to be made safe or taken down without delay, and a proper fence put up for the protection of passers-by, or to be made secure. If such a building or structure is taken down or removed, the lot shall be levelled to uniform grade by a proper sanitary fill to cover any cellar or foundation hole and any rubble not removed.
Notes of Decisions
Atkins v. Jiminy Peak, Inc., 514 N.E.2d 850 (Mass. 1987).
“This case presents the question whether an action by an injured skier against a ski area operator is governed by the one-year limitation of actions provision of G. L. c. 143, § 7 IP, where the plaintiff’s theories of recovery are negligence and breach of warranty, as well as…”
Vigorito v. City of Chelsea, 124 N.E.3d 699 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019).
“G. L. c. 143, §§ 7 & 9. 1 In the case before us, the plaintiff, Rocco Vigorito, to whom the relevant property had been sold after demolition had been ordered, appeals from a Superior Court judgment entered after the allowance of the city's motion to dismiss under Mass.”
Russell v. City of New Bedford, 910 N.E.2d 404 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009).
“G. L. c. 143, § 7. On this one parcel there were two separately numbered buildings; number eleven, a three-family building close to the street, and number nine, a single-family building set back and partly behind the three-family building.”
Zeroulias v. Hamilton Am. Legion Assocs., Inc., 705 N.E.2d 1164 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999).
“” In an attempt to distinguish Grass , the defendant argues that the statute in Grass , G. L. c. 143, § 7 IP, applies to a ski resort operator’s liability for injured skiers, and thus the holding in Grass is only applicable to similar ski accident cases where a skier is killed…”
Morais v. City of Lowell, 738 N.E.2d 1158 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000).
“139, §§ 1 & 3, or where the owner fails to remove a structure or to make it safe, see G. L. c. 143, §§ 7, 8, & 9. To the extent the plaintiffs’ complaint sounds in negligence for failure to provide notice, the city’s observation that 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.