Noble v. Murphy
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtJacobs, J.
The plaintiffs, as managers of a condominium established under G. L. c. 183A, sought the removal of two pet dogs from a condominium unit owned by John Murphy and Margaret Wilson. 3 They based their action upon a condominium by-law banning all pets from any housing unit or common area of the condominium. They also sought to enforce by-laws providing for the assessment of a $5 per day per violation penalty and payment by the defendants of the “costs and expense of eliminating” violations. The defendants, by answer and counterclaim, questioned the validity of the pet restriction and the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. NormanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1975
- Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. BassoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
- Barclay v. DeVeauMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
- Kaplan v. BoudreauxMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Franklin v. SpadaforaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Berish v. BornsteinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
- McEneaney v. Chestnut Hill Realty Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1995
- Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Ass'n v. TerifajCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.