Marvin v. Board of Appeals

359 N.E.2d 318, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 772
Massachusetts Appeals Court·Decided January 31, 1977·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The judge did not err in allowing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the uncontested affidavit of the town clerk that no notice of the appeal from the board’s decision (filed with the town clerk on September 12, 1975) was received by her office until October 20, 1975. G. L. c. 40A, § 21, second par., as amended through St. 1974, c. 78, § 1 (see now G. L. c. 40A, § 17, first par., as appearing in St. 1975, c. 808, I 3). Costello v. Board of Appeals of Lexington, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 441, 442-443 (1975). The authority of the Costello case has not been impaired by Pierce v. Board of Appeals of Carver, 369 Mass. 804 (1976), which, at 808-809, cited the Costello case approvingly and affirmed that the dual time requirements of the second paragraph of § 21, relative to the commencement of the action in the Superior Court and the filing of notice thereof in the office of the town clerk, will be “policed in the strongest way.”

Judgment affirmed.

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

Marvin v. Board of Appeals, 359 N.E.2d 318, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 772 (Mass. Ct. App. 1977).

359 N.E.2d 318 (Marvin v. Board of Appeals) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

County of Norfolk v. Zoning Board of Appeals
450 N.E.2d 628 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1983)
Pasqualino v. Board of Appeals
440 N.E.2d 523 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1982)
Nightingale v. Board of Appeals of Methuen
386 N.E.2d 1064 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1979)