Legal Opinion

O'Brien v. Hamilton

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided March 16, 1983PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The plaintiffs O’Brien and Holmes each own a separate parcel of land in Kingston near Brook Street, a public way. Hamilton owns a sand and gravel pit on about nineteen acres of back land, which has no bound directly upon a public way. One access to the sand pit is by a “wood road” about 2,500 feet long, which runs south through the O’Brien parcel (about seven acres) and the Holmes parcel (about twenty-eight acres) and through other land. Another access to the sand pit runs south from the sand pit through other land “over . . . more difficult terrain” to a different public way.

The northerly…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Glenn v. PooleMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1981
  2. Lawless v. TrumbullMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1962
  3. Town of Kingston v. HamiltonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1975

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Carmel v. BaillargeonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1986
  2. Cannata v. Berkshire Natural Resources Council, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2009
  3. Robertson v. Town of PlymouthMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API