Irving Coven Construction & Realty, Inc. v. State Tax Commission
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
Nothing appears in the plaintiff’s appeal from the order denying its motion to determine whether the defendant commission had complied with the writ of mandamus previously issued against it. In the first place, the judge was not required to entertain the motion for the reason that it was grounded on factual allegations unverified by affidavit, and not apparent from the record and files or agreed to by written stipulation. Rule 9 of the Superior Court (1974). See H. Piken & Co. Inc. v. Planet Constr. Corp. 3 Mass. App. Ct. 246, 249 (1975). If, on the other hand, the judge did grant a hearing…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Nickerson v. DowdMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1961
- Reid v. Acting Commissioner of the Department of Community AffairsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
- Natick Trust Co. v. Board of Bank IncorporationMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1958
- Dr. Joseph Gilbert v. Donald Johnson and Dr. Marc J. MusserCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- H. Piken & Co., Inc. v. Planet Constr. Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1975
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- General Chemical Corp. v. Department of Environmental Quality EngineeringMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
- Poras v. PaulingMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
- Albee Industries, Inc. v. Inspector of BuildingsMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
- General Chemical v. Dept. of Envtl. QualityMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
- Clay v. DerrivanMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2001