Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40, § 17 (2026)

Assessment

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 17. If a city determines that the public ways or any portion thereof shall be sprinkled in whole or in part at the expense of the abutters, such expense for a municipal year, and the proportion thereof to be borne by abutters, and the rate to be assessed upon each linear foot of frontage upon such ways, shall be estimated and determined by the board of aldermen and assessed upon the estates abutting on such ways in proportion to the number of linear feet of each estate upon such ways or portion thereof sprinkled. The amount of such assessments upon each estate shall be determined by said board, or, if said board so designates, by the board of public works, board of street commissioners, superintendent of streets or other officer; and such board or officer shall, as soon as may be after the first day of January, cause a list of such ways or portions thereof to be made, specifying each estate and the number of linear feet thereof abutting thereon, the amount per linear foot, and the amount on each estate of such assessment, and certify and commit said list to the assessors of taxes. In a town such assessment shall be made by the assessors.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Patterson v. Omnipoint Commc'ns, Inc., 122 F. Supp. 2d 222 (D. Mass. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Patterson v. Omnipoint Commc'ns, Inc., 122 F. Supp. 2d 222 (D. Mass. 2000). · cites it 2× “” See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40, § 17 . The decision to comply with the Tower Ventures order was not unreasonable, nor based on "legally untenable grounds.”

Chambers v. Bldg. Inspector of Peabody, 667 N.E.2d 895 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996). “The plaintiff then brought these actions under G. L. c. 40, § 17, seeking judicial review of the building inspector’s actions in issuing both permits.”

Morse v. Levey (2021). “Morse") commenced this G. L. c. 40, § 17, appeal with the filing of a complaint on April 6, 2021 in which Mr.”

Stafford v. Plan. Bd. of Falmouthand Another, 95 N.E.3d 299 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017). “The applicant moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the board had issued a special permit, not approved a definitive plan, and that therefore the plaintiffs' sole remedy was an appeal of the special permit pursuant to G. L. c. 40, § 17. A judge of the Superior Court…”

Lafond v. Renewable Energy Dev. Partners, LLC, 103 N.E.3d 770 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). “Lafond voluntarily waived his first claim pursuant to G. L. c. 40, § 17. After he filed a motion for summary judgment and declaratory relief, the parties agreed to incorporate REDP's pending motion to dismiss into the cross motions for summary judgment.”

Bd. of Selectmen of Pepperell v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Pepperell (Mass. App. Ct. 2024). “Ruling on cross motions for summary judgment by the board and the residents -- and with the parties stipulating to the dismissal of their G. L. c. 40, § 17, appeals -- the judge concluded that the project was a commercial dumping ground, and that § 277 did not preempt the town's…”

Sheehan ex rel. Eight Mates Trust v. Plymouth Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 16 Mass. L. Rptr. 543 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2003). “The plaintiff surely has no legal right or legal interest in keeping her neighbor’s lot totally undeveloped. Nevertheless, environmental, conservation and harbor view benefits to the waterfront neighborhood are among the interests that must be considered under various provisions…”

Junior v. Wiley, 18 Mass. L. Rptr. 125 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2004). “G.L.c. 40, §17 specifically states, in pertinent part, the following: Any person aggrieved by a decision of the board of appeals .”

Jamieson v. Pellegrini, 3 Mass. L. Rptr. 237 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1994). “INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs have appealed, pursuant to G.L.c. 40, §17, from a Zoning Board of Appeal’s decision allowing defendants, Nicholas K.”

Fraser Eng'g Co. v. Franchi Grp. Assocs., Inc., 8 Mass. L. Rptr. 595 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1998). “Both cases concerned the consequences of an administrative board’s failure to notify all abutters of a hearing despite the requirements of G.L.c. 40, § 17. The Appeals Court determined that the failure to strictly comply with statutory requirements need not invalidate every…”

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.