Legal Opinion

Rettig v. Planning Board of Rowley

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided April 5, 1955PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilkins, J.

The plaintiffs are landowners in Rowley. They submitted to the defendant planning board a plan of a portion of their land entitled “Rowley Hills Section E” for a determination by the board that approval under the subdivision control law was not required, and, after a determination by the board that in its opinion the plan required approval, brought this bill in equity by way of appeal. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 41, §§ 81P, 81BB, as appearing in St. 1953, c. 674, § 7. The Superior Court entered a final decree that the plan does not require such approval, and the board appealed to this court.

The…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pendergast v. Board of AppealsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1954
  2. Bicknell Realty Co. v. Board of Appeal of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1953

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Gifford v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
  2. Daley Construction Co. v. Planning Board of RandolphMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1959
  3. Fairbairn v. Planning Board of BarnstableMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1977
  4. North Landers Corp. v. Planning Board of FalmouthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
  5. Perry v. Planning Board of NantucketMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1983

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API