Legal Opinion
Champigny v. Commonwealth
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 7, 1996PublishedCited by 72 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLiacos, C.J.
The plaintiffs are successors in interest to the Elm Shank & Heel Company, Inc. (Elm Shank), which in January, 1981, received notice that the Commonwealth would take real property from the company by eminent domain. After the taking and while Elm Shank was seeking relocation benefits for its tangible personal property located on the locus (see G. L. c. 79A, § 7 [I] [A] [1994 ed.]), the personal property was destroyed by fire. The agreed on relevant appraisal for this personal property was $588,490. This figure the Com*250monwealth refused to pay. In Elm Shank & Heel Co. v. Commonwealth, 401 Mass.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Selectmen of Topsfield v. State Racing CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
- Attorney General v. School Committee of EssexMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Commonwealth v. GalvinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
- American Family Life Assurance Co. v. Commissioner of InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
- Telesetsky v. WightMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by72 opinions
- Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2007
- Noonan v. Staples, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2009
- Harvard Crimson, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard CollegeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
- Sullivan v. Chief Justice for Administration & Management of the Trial CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
- Commonwealth v. KellyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2015
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.