Legal Opinion

Krueger v. Devine

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided July 23, 1984PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKass, J.

Primarily, what the parties contest is the adequacy of a description of land in Edgartown, Martha’s Vineyard, which was taken in 1928 for non-payment of taxes. That the description was not precise is beyond peradventure; the question is whether it was so insufficient as to constitute an irregularity which is “substantial” or “misleading” within the meaning of G. L. c. 60, § 37, as amended by St. 1976, c. 322. See Springfield v. Schaffer, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 277, 279 (1981). A judge of the Land Court determined that no substantial or misleading irregularity attended the tax taking and tax deed…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. New England Canteen Service, Inc. v. AshleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  2. Conners v. City of LowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
  3. McHale v. TreworgyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
  4. Norton v. WestMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
  5. Town of Franklin v. MetcalfeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Opinion of the Justices to House of RepresentativesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
  2. Devine v. Town of NantucketMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007
  3. Bergh v. HinesMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1998
  4. Lamontagne v. KnightlyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1991
  5. People v. HarrodAppellate Court of Illinois · 1986

2 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