Legal Opinion

Kane v. Martel

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided March 5, 2018No. 16–P–1533Published

1Opinion of the Court

The defendants, Thomas and Dawn Martel and Andrew Schlosberg, appeal from a third amended judgment issued by a judge of the Land Court in a dispute involving ownership of, and access to, a beach in Hingham Harbor situated near the parties' homes. Concluding that all of the remaining plaintiffs4 hold easement rights to access and use the beach, effective by deed and implication, we affirm.

1. Background. For a detailed factual background of the dispute over the beach and walkways, we refer to the Land Court judge's initial decision entered on December 12, 2007, and his third revised decision…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Labounty v. VickersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1967
  2. Dennis v. WilsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  3. Anderson v. DeVriesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
  4. Cheever v. GravesMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1992
  5. Martin v. Simmons Properties, LLCMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014

17 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