Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Goldberg

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 4, 1946PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtQua, J.

The sole question to be determined is whether the provisions of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 186, § 14, apply to tenancies at will.

*8This section reads as follows: “Any lessor of any building or part thereof occupied for dwelling purposes, .other than a room or rooms in a hotel, lodging house or rooming house, who is required by the terms, expressed or implied, of any contract or lease, to furnish water, heat, light, power, elevator service or telephone service to any occupant of such building, or part thereof, who wilfully or intentionally fails to furnish such water, heat, light, power, elevator…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Flanagan v. WelchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
  2. Crowe v. BixbyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
  3. Ratner v. HoganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
  4. Marsters v. ClingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Martin A. Dale v. H.B. Smith Company, Inc., Martin A. Dale v. H.B. Smith Company, Inc., Martin A. Dale v. H.B. Smith Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1998
  2. Bearce v. Brockton-East Shopping Plaza, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
  3. Cape Cod Shellfish & Seafood Co., Inc. v. City of BostonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API