Legal Opinion

Fease v. Vendenakker

Massachusetts Superior Court

Decided April 19, 2012No. WOCV201200390PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Ricciardone, David, J.

INTRODUCTION

This matter came before the court for hearing on the motion of the defendants, plaintiffs-in-counterclaim, to enjoin the plaintiff from altering the dam on its adjoining property in the manner it has for the past two years causing flooding of the defendants’ land. For reasons discussed below, the motion is ALLOWED.

DISCUSSION

To succeed in an action for a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable harm will result from denial of the injunction; and (3) that, in light of the plaintiffs likelihood…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Packaging Industries Group, Inc. v. CheneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
  2. Tri-Nel Management, Inc. v. Board of HealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
  3. Chesarone v. Pinewood Builders, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1962
  4. Dicicco v. Department of Environmental ProtectionMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2005
  5. Bardwell v. AmesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1839

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Fease v. VandenakkerMassachusetts Superior Court · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API