Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Hayden

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided February 29, 1912PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C. J.

The defendant was convicted * upon a complaint which charged him with the violation of an ordinance of the city of Somerville, in that he replaced upon a certain roof old shingles with new, without otherwise changing the roof. The ordinance was as follows: “Whenever a roof covering, other than non-combustible,, is hereafter replaced in whole or in part, the new roof covering shall be non-combustible to the satisfaction of said inspector, if as much as one third of the superficial area of the entire roof is replaced.” The maxinfum penalty for violation of the ordinance was $100. It is plain…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. MaletskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
  2. City of Newton v. BelgerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
  3. City of Salem v. MaynesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
  4. Inhabitants of Winthrop v. New England Chocolate Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
  5. Bigelow v. City CouncilMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. Matter of 440 E. 102nd St. Corp. v. MurdockNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
  2. Leahy v. Inspector of BuildingsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
  3. Leone v. DoranMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
  4. Building Commissioner v. C. & H. Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  5. Collatos v. Boston Retirement BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986

37 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