Kent v. Board of Health

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Kent v. Board of Health

307 N.E.2d 850, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 803

DecidedMarch 15, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 307 N.E.2d 850 (Kent v. Board of Health) 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

Kent v. Board of Health, 307 N.E.2d 850, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 803 (Mass. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a bill under G. L. c. 231A seeking a declaration that §§ 5 and 6 of the rules and regulations of the board of health of the town of Milton concerning the municipal disposal area are invalid as applied to the plaintiffs. The defendants’ demurrer to the bill was sustained. The only issue for our determination is whether the demurrer was properly sustained on either of the assigned grounds that “. . . [1 ]. The . . . [bill] fails to state concisely and with substantial certainty the facts necessary to entitle the . . . [plaintiffs] to any relief against the . . . [defendants], [2], The . . . [bill] does not concisely set out facts showing a case presenting a significant controversy.” While the bill does contain a number of unnecessary averments of fact it clearly sets out that a controversy exists as to the validity of the regulations and as to the manner in which those regulations have been, and in the future should be, enforced against the plaintiffs. See South Shore Natl. Bank v. Board of Bank Incorporation, 351 Mass. 363, 368 (1966); Pistorino & Co. Inc. v. Style Leather Co. Inc. 361 Mass. 464, 468 (1972). The fact that the controversy relates in part to the enforcement of criminal sanctions does not preclude the rendering of a declaratory decree. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Attorney Gen. 361 Mass. 401, 405 (1972). The interlocutory decree sustaining the demurrer and the final decree are reversed, and a new interlocutory decree is to be entered overruling the demurrer.

So ordered.

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

This is a bill under G. L. c. 231A seeking a declaration that §§ 5 and 6 of the rules and regulations of the board of health of the town of Milton concerning the municipal disposal area are invalid as applied to the plaintiffs. The defendants’ demurrer to the bill was sustained. The only issue for our determination is whether the demurrer was properly sustained on either of the assigned grounds that “. . . [1 ]. The . . . [bill] fails to state concisely and with substantial certainty the facts necessary to entitle the . . . [plaintiffs] to any relief against the . . . [defendants], [2], The . . . [bill] does not concisely set out facts showing a case presenting a significant controversy.” While the bill does contain a number of unnecessary averments of fact it clearly sets out that a controversy exists as to the validity of the regulations and as to the manner in which those regulations have been, and in the future should be, enforced against the plaintiffs. See South Shore Natl. Bank v. Board of Bank Incorporation, 351 Mass. 363, 368 (1966); Pistorino & Co. Inc. v. Style Leather Co. Inc. 361 Mass. 464, 468 (1972). The fact that the controversy relates in part to the enforcement of criminal sanctions does not preclude the rendering of a declaratory decree. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Attorney Gen. 361 Mass. 401, 405 (1972). The interlocutory decree sustaining the demurrer and the final decree are reversed, and a new interlocutory decree is to be entered overruling the demurrer.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 N.E.2d 850, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kent-v-board-of-health-massappct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack