Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 8 (2026)

Handling of ballots

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 8. At any meeting for the choice of town officers in a town not using official ballots, no ballots shall be received by the moderator unless presented for deposit in the ballot box, open and unfolded, by the voter in person, and so that the moderator can know that only one ballot is presented. No moderator or other election officer shall, before the polls are closed, read, examine, or permit to be read or examined, the names contained upon any ballot.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 44 cases, 1991–2015 · leading case: Giuffrida v. High Country Inv., Inc., 897 N.E.2d 82 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Giuffrida v. High Country Inv., Inc., 897 N.E.2d 82 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “They claimed that the new direct lease, which was supposed to contain the same terms as the Sublease, included “substantial modifications that increase Ranch’s responsibilities and limit its rights and interests”; that a previously approved “ANR plan” (approval not required; see…”

Beale v. Plan. Bd., 423 Mass. 690 (Mass. 1996). “41, § 81U, nor endorsement of a plan as not requiring subdivision approval, in accordance with G. L. c. 41, § 8 IP, prevents enforcement of a zoning ordinance or by-law by other authorities.”

Morgan v. Jozus, 851 N.E.2d 1080 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006). “Without notice to Morgan, the executor had a plan created dividing the cottage parcel into two lots, had the plan endorsed by the planning board as “approval not required” (ANR) under the subdivision control law pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 8 IP, and recorded the plan with the…”

Palitz v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Tisbury, 26 N.E.3d 175 (Mass. 2015). “13 The creation of exemptions from “subdivision” under § 81L and “approval not required” (ANR) endorsements under G. L. c. 41, § 8 IP (§ 8 IP), were among the many revisions made to the subdivision control law in 1953 as result of the Report of the Special Commission on Planning…”

Musto v. Plan. Bd., 768 N.E.2d 588 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002). “In a consolidated case, the judge upheld the board’s refusal to endorse, as “approval not required” pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 8 IP, a plan proposing to *832 divide a portion of the Musto parcel into multiple lots.”

81 Spooner Road, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 936 N.E.2d 895 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010). “G. L. c. 41, § 8 IP. The plan allowed *235 LLC to divide 81 Spooner Road into two separate lots: a smaller 81 Spooner Road lot, comprised of 10,893 square feet of land, with the vintage home; and a larger land lot, known as 71 Spooner Road, with 11,648 square feet of area.”

Ridgeley Mgmt. Corp. v. Plan. Bd. of Gosnold, 978 N.E.2d 799 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012). “6 After a hearing, a judge of the Land Court concluded that the statute authorizing local acceptance of subdivision control, G. L. c. 41, § 8 IN, required both the establishment of a planning board and the planning board’s adoption of rules and regulations.”

Matulewicz v. Plan. Bd., 438 Mass. 37 (Mass. 2002). · cites it 2× “G. L. c. 41, § 8 IP. 3 This endorse *38 ment “shall not be withheld unless the plan shows a subdivision.”

Murphy v. Plan. Bd., 874 N.E.2d 455 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). “41, § 81D), adoption of an official map (G. L. c. 41, § 8 IE, et seq.), establishment and discontinuance of the lines of ways (G.”

Rando v. Town of North Attleborough, 692 N.E.2d 544 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). “40A, and that the town failed to follow its own “master plan” established pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 8 ID. We affirm the judgment.”

Southwick v. Plan. Bd., 891 N.E.2d 239 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “See G. L. c. 41, § 8 IBB (permitting appeals from planning board decisions concerning subdivision plans to be brought in Superior Court or Land Court).”

Adams v. Brolly, 702 N.E.2d 400 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). “In March, 1993, after he secured an “approval not required” endorsement for his proposal from the planning board of Dedham (planning board), see G. L. c. 41, § 8 IP, the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) proposed a taking that precluded the consummation of a land swap…”

Show all 44 citing cases →

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.