Legal Opinion

Smith v. Allmon

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided April 9, 1984PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKass, J.

There was in the purchase and sale agreement a provision that the obligations of the buyer (the plaintiff Smith) “are contingent upon the determination by Buyers’ attorney that the rights, easements, restrictions and agreements set forth or referred to in certificate of title No. 1858 or in this agreement shall not directly burden or encumber [the premises], or in any way interfere with the Buyers’ ability to use and enjoy [the premises] for residential purposes without restriction.”

As matters fell out, the buyer’s attorney determined that certain restrictions in the title made it…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Community National Bank v. DawesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
  2. Gallant v. WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
  3. Jeffries v. JeffriesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
  4. Winchell v. Plywood Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
  5. Benjamin Foster Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Gorman v. GormanSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2005
  2. Fall River Savings Bank v. CallahanMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1984
  3. Hein Enterprises, Ltd. v. San Francisco Real Estate InvestorsColorado Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. G.M. Abodeely Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Commerce InsuranceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1996
  5. Katz v. Children's Hospital Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1992

3 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