Lobao v. Commonwealth
Massachusetts Appeals Court
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
- Epstein v. Boston Housing AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
- Amory v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
- Loschi v. Massachusetts Port AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
- Muzi v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
- Atherton v. EmersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.