Legal Opinion

Hamouda v. Harris

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided April 6, 2006No. 05-P-79PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMills, J.

In a dispute between two neighbors in Cambridge over the continued existence and permissible extent of use of a driveway easement, a judge of the Land Court ruled that the easement had not been extinguished, and that it was created to benefit an entire lot and was not limited to the particular purpose of gaining access to a garage.

1. The facts. The plaintiff, Omar F. Hamouda, owns a lot containing 2,911 square feet, on Third Street in Cambridge. A dwelling and garage are located on his lot (Hamouda lot). The defendant, Mary Harris, owns an adjoining lot containing 2,649 square feet, improved…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. J. A. Sullivan Corp. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
  2. Robert Industries, Inc. v. SpenceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
  3. Ryan v. StavrosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1964
  4. Reilly v. Selectmen of BlackstoneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
  5. Swensen v. MarinoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Martin v. Simmons Properties, LLCMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014
  2. Denardo v. StantonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2009
  3. Faneuil Investors Group, Ltd. Partnership v. Board of SelectmenMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2009
  4. Pearson v. Bayview Assocs., Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2018
  5. Amesbury v. Hatter's Point Condominium AssociationMassachusetts Land Court · 2021

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