Legal Opinion

Kane v. Vanzura

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided February 16, 2011No. 09-P-1185PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGreen, J.

At issue are the plaintiffs’ claims of rights to use a beach in Hingham Harbor, situated behind the defendants’ homes. In a thorough and detailed memorandum of decision, a judge of the Land Court concluded that the claim of deeded rights by certain of the plaintiffs was invalid, but that some of those plaintiffs, as well as others who asserted no claim of deeded rights, nonetheless had acquired prescriptive rights to the beach, together with rights to pass over a way to gain access to the beach. We conclude that the judge erred in his conclusion that a 1929 instrument, purporting to convey…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Opinion of the Justices to the House of RepresentativesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
  2. Mt. Holyoke Realty Corp. v. Holyoke Realty Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
  3. Boston Waterfront Development Corp. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
  4. Sheftel v. LebelMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1998
  5. Tucker v. PochMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Smaland Beach Association, Inc. v. GenovaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2018
  2. Leahy v. GravelineMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2012
  3. Kane v. MartelMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API