Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Durand v. IDC Bellingham, LLC

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided August 15, 2003Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSpina, J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part, with whom Ireland and Cowin, JJ., join). I concur with the result the court reaches, but I disagree with the reasoning of the decision.

A town is a “corporate entit[y].” Art. 89, § 8(4), of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. See Opinion of the Justices, 416 Mass. 1201, 1202-1203 (1993). Corporations act through their authorized agents, and when a corporation’s actions come into question, we attribute to the corporation the actions, words, and knowledge of its agents acting within their authority. This principle applies equally to…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co. v. Town of DanversMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
  2. Pheasant Ridge Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Town of BurlingtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
  3. Leahy v. Inspector of BuildingsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
  4. Opinion of the Justices to the Senate & the House of RepresentativesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960
  5. Whittemore v. Building InspectorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943

6 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