Krueger v. Devine
Massachusetts Appeals Court
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
- New England Canteen Service, Inc. v. AshleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Conners v. City of LowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- McHale v. TreworgyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
- Norton v. WestMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
- Town of Franklin v. MetcalfeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Opinion of the Justices to House of RepresentativesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- Devine v. Town of NantucketMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007
- Bergh v. HinesMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1998
- Lamontagne v. KnightlyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1991
- People v. HarrodAppellate Court of Illinois · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.