Everts v. The Wine Cellar, Inc.
32 N.E.2d 244, 308 Mass. 599, 1941 Mass. LEXIS 683
Opinion
Decree affirmed with costs. The defendant’s illuminated sign is not shown to be a nuisance. If it unlawfully projected towards the street beyond a building line established under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 82, § 37, the remedy must be sought by public authorities rather than by neighboring residents or proprietors. Hagerty v. McGovern, 187 Mass. 479. Mullholland v. State Racing Commission, 295 Mass. 286, 290, 291. Mayor of Cambridge v. Dean, 300 Mass. 174.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Everts v. The Wine Cellar, Inc., 32 N.E.2d 244, 308 Mass. 599, 1941 Mass. LEXIS 683 (Mass. 1941).
32 N.E.2d 244 (Everts v. The Wine Cellar, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sullivan v. Chief Justice for Administration & Management of the Trial Court
448 Mass. 15 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2006)
Shirley Hale v. Erwin Ostrow, Rose Ostrow, Max Ostrow
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2004