Chiara v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Chiara v. Zoning Board of Appeals

307 N.E.2d 599, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 1974 Mass. App. LEXIS 730

DecidedMarch 4, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 307 N.E.2d 599 (Chiara v. Zoning Board of Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chiara v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 307 N.E.2d 599, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 1974 Mass. App. LEXIS 730 (Mass. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff’s bill of exceptions and appeal challenge an order for judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus, brought to compel the defendant to file with the city clerk, pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 18, as amended through St. 1971, c. 1018, the record of its proceedings and the reasons for its decision [797]*797denying the plaintiff’s application for a variance. The defendant represents that the matter has become moot, as it filed the record of proceedings and reasons for its decision on September 10, 1971. A copy of that filing, certified by the city clerk, has been furnished to us by the defendant. The plaintiff concedes that the record and decision have in fact been filed. The order for judgment is to be modified to require entry of judgment in the form, “The subject matter of the petition having become moot, the petition is dismissed,” and as so modified is affirmed. See Selectmen of Lakeville v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commn. 329 Mass. 769 (1953).

Jean C. Campopiano for the plaintiff. Americo J. Fusco, Town Counsel, for the Zoning Board of Appeals of Methuen.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The plaintiff’s bill of exceptions and appeal challenge an order for judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus, brought to compel the defendant to file with the city clerk, pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 18, as amended through St. 1971, c. 1018, the record of its proceedings and the reasons for its decision [797]*797denying the plaintiff’s application for a variance. The defendant represents that the matter has become moot, as it filed the record of proceedings and reasons for its decision on September 10, 1971. A copy of that filing, certified by the city clerk, has been furnished to us by the defendant. The plaintiff concedes that the record and decision have in fact been filed. The order for judgment is to be modified to require entry of judgment in the form, “The subject matter of the petition having become moot, the petition is dismissed,” and as so modified is affirmed. See Selectmen of Lakeville v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commn. 329 Mass. 769 (1953).

Jean C. Campopiano for the plaintiff. Americo J. Fusco, Town Counsel, for the Zoning Board of Appeals of Methuen.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 N.E.2d 599, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 1974 Mass. App. LEXIS 730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chiara-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-massappct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack