Section 32A. The board or officers of a city or town having charge of a public way may, after holding a public hearing, notice of which shall be sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, to all property owners abutting an affected road and notice of which shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or town once in each of two successive weeks, the first publication to be not less than fourteen days before the day of the hearing and by posting in a conspicuous place in the office of the city or town clerk for a period of not less than fourteen days before the day of the hearing, upon finding that a city or town way or public way has become abandoned and unused for ordinary travel and that the common convenience and necessity no longer requires said town way or public way to be maintained in a condition reasonably safe and convenient for travel, shall declare that the city or town shall no longer be bound to keep such way or public way in repair and upon filing of such declaration with the city or town clerk such declaration shall take effect, provided that sufficient notice to warn the public that the way is no longer maintained is posted at both ends of such way or public way, or portions thereof. Upon petition in writing of the board or officers of a city or town in which a county highway is located, the county commissioners, whenever common convenience and necessity no longer require such way to be maintained in a condition reasonably safe and convenient for public travel, after giving notice in the manner prescribed in section 3, and after viewing the premises and hearing the interested parties in the manner prescribed in section 4, may adjudicate that the town shall no longer be bound to keep the way in repair, and thereupon the adjudication shall take effect; provided, that sufficient notice to warn the public that the way is no longer maintained is posted at both ends of the way, or portions thereof.
Notes of Decisions
Chandler v. Cnty. Commissioners, 437 Mass. 430 (Mass. 2002).
“G. L. c. 82, § 32A. Here, the lodestar of “common convenience and necessity” is the need for public ways maintained in a state “reasonably safe and convenient for travel.”
Nylander v. Potter, 423 Mass. 158 (Mass. 1996).
· cites it 2× “A legal discontinuance, by town vote, of a road as a public w,av is to be distinguished from a discontinuance of maintenance under G. L. c. 82, § 32A (1994 ed.). A discontinuance of maintenance under G.”
Coombs v. Bd. of Selectmen, 528 N.E.2d 136 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988).
· cites it 2× “These concerns led, on August 22, 1984, to a vote by the selectmen, after a public hearing pursuant to G. L. c. 82, § 32A, purporting to discontinue maintenance of Hawks Road in the described stretch.”
Carmel v. Baillargeon, 487 N.E.2d 867 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986).
“See also G. L. c. 82, § 32A, as appearing in St. 1983, c.”
Town of Concord v. Neil E. Rasmussen & Others (Mass. 2025).
· cites it 8× “Second, the abutters contend that when the road was discontinued by the Middlesex county commissioners (county commissioners) in 1932 pursuant to G. L. c. 82, § 32A (§ 32A), the public lost any right to enter the resulting "private way.”
Schuffels v. Bell, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 76 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985).
“If it had once been such by laying out or dedication, see Fenn v. Middleborough, 1 Mass.”
Baillargeon v. CSX Transp. (D. Mass. 2020).
· cites it 2× “1996) (“A legal discontinuance, by town vote, of a road as a public way is to be distinguished from a discontinuance of maintenance under G.L. c. 82, § 32A (1994 ed.). A discontinuance of maintenance under G.”
Brooks v. Town of Worthington (D. Mass. 2025).
“) The letter explained that Plaintiff had not alleged conduct that violated the Open Meeting Law and the Attorney General would not be taking any action on his allegations that Worthington was violating Mass. Gen. Laws c. 82, § 32A, the statute governing decisions to cease…”
Brooks (D. Mass. 2025).
“) The letter explained that Plaintiff had not alleged conduct that violated the Open Meeting Law and the Attorney General would not be taking any action on his allegations that Worthington was violating Mass. Gen. Laws c. 82, § 32A, the statute governing decisions to cease…”
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.