Legal Opinion

Rattigan v. Wile

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 25, 2006PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCowin, J.

We conclude in this appeal that activities on one’s property that create or maintain unreasonable aesthetic conditions for neighbors are actionable as a private nuisance. We need not reach the merits of the defendant’s res judicata claim because it was not pleaded below. The judge properly awarded damages and issued an injunction, although we modify both slightly.

Facts. This case comes to us after a long history of litigation between the parties that culminated in a jury-waived trial in the Superior Court. We recite the facts found by the judge, supplemented as necessary by other undisputed…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. United States v. CausbySupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  3. Anthony's Pier Four, Inc. v. HBC ASSOCIATESMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
  4. Kuwaiti Danish Computer Co. v. Digital Equipment Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2003
  5. General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Department of Public WorksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Haufler v. ZotosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
  2. Trenz v. Town of NorwellMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
  3. Cooper v. Regional Administrative Judge of the District Court for Region VMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
  4. F.W.T. v. F.T.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2018
  5. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. BartlemanMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2019

13 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