Legal Opinion

Lobao v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided May 12, 1976Published

1Opinion of the Court

1. Passing the absence of an offer of proof (see Ford v. Worcester, 339 Mass. 657, 658-662 [1959]), we hold that the judge did not abuse his discretion (Muzi v. Commonwealth, 335 Mass. 101, 106 [1956]) in refusing to allow the witness Mass to express his opinion (if he had one) of the highest and best use of the industrially zoned land lying along Route 1 in Danvers. No effort was made to qualify him as an appraiser. Contrast the Muzi case, supra, at 102-105. On the evidence, the witness’ experience as the owner of similarly zoned land in the vicinity had been confined to a single parcel…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Epstein v. Boston Housing AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
  2. Amory v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
  3. Loschi v. Massachusetts Port AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
  4. Muzi v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
  5. Atherton v. EmersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908

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