Oliver v. Town of Mattapoisett
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtKass, J.
First, there is a problem of standing. The plaintiffs, who challenge an easement already granted by the town, allege no interest other than as taxpayers. Ten or more taxpayers of a town may, by an equitable action, ask a court to determine the lawfulness of expenditures or obligations about to be incurred. G. L. c. 40, § 53.
So far as the easement in question is concerned, Mattapoisett’s act is completed, and there is no future obligation. The easement here has been executed, delivered, and recorded. More has been done, therefore, than was the case with the easement in Lynch v. Cambridge, 330…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Fuller v. Trustees of Deerfield AcademyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Jacobson v. Parks & Recreation Commission of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1963
- Gallo v. Division of Water Pollution ControlMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
- Lynch v. City of CambridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1953
- Muir v. City of LeominsterMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1974
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Public Service Company of New Hampshire v. Town of West Newbury, Thomas E. Pulkkinen, and Patricia Wells KnowlesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987
- Salem Sound Development Corp. v. City of SalemMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1988
- Zoning Board of Appeals v. Housing Appeals CommitteeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
- Carter v. Town of DouglasMassachusetts Superior Court · 2001