Legal Opinion

Town of Orange v. Shay

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided March 2, 2007No. 06-P-439PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLenk, J.

Judgment entered after a bench trial permanently enjoining the defendants, Joseph Shay, Jr., and Michael Generazio, from further removing gravel or other material, including topsoil, from their property located at Holtshire Road in Orange (town).3 On appeal, the defendants claim that their current gravel *359and sand removal operation is protected from the town’s zoning by-law as a prior nonconforming use that was never abandoned. They contend that, in determining otherwise, the judge erred in certain of her rulings of law and made findings of fact that were clearly erroneous. We affirm.

Background…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
  2. J. A. Sullivan Corp. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
  3. Spiegel v. Beacon Participations, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
  4. Town of Burlington v. DunnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
  5. Davis v. Zoning Board of ChathamMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2001

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Plainville Asphalt Corp. v. Town of PlainvilleMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2013
  2. Brommage's CaseMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2009
  3. Chiaraluce v. Zoning Board of Appeals of WarehamMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API