Paradysz v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Paradysz v. Commonwealth

202 N.E.2d 795, 348 Mass. 775, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 978

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 2, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 N.E.2d 795 (Paradysz v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paradysz v. Commonwealth, 202 N.E.2d 795, 348 Mass. 775, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 978 (Mass. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. The Commonwealth argues only that there was abuse of discretion amounting to error of law in the admission in evidence of the sale price of five tracts of land as comparable to the land taken (the locus) from the petitioners on May 2, 1958. All of the lands sold, tike the locus, were open lands and had a frontage on Route 9 near the Amherst-Hadley line. The locus was farm land. The sales were of: (A) undeveloped land opposite the locus, April 7, 1956. (B) farm land, three quarters of a mile from the locus, March 3, 1959. (C) undeveloped land, adjoining the locus, May 2,1960. (D) undeveloped land, next to A, May 27, 1963. (E) farm land, 700 feet from the locus, June 1, 1963. [776]*776The elements of proximity or remoteness of the time of the sales, of the location of the sites, and other factors indicating similarity or difference, varying in each instance in relation to the locus, present questions of admissibUity which were not beyond the range of judicial discretion. Johnson v. Lowell, 240 Mass. 546, 549. Lembor v. Framingham, 330 Mass. 461, 463. See Amory v. Commonwealth, 321 Mass. 240, 255-256; Brush Hill Dev. Inc. v. Commonwealth, 338 Mass. 359, 366-368; Leen v. Assessors of Boston, 345 Mass. 494, 505-507. No error of law has been shown.

Frank H. Freedman, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth. Emerson S. Searle (John E. Flanagan with him) for the petitioners.

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

Exceptions overruled. The Commonwealth argues only that there was abuse of discretion amounting to error of law in the admission in evidence of the sale price of five tracts of land as comparable to the land taken (the locus) from the petitioners on May 2, 1958. All of the lands sold, tike the locus, were open lands and had a frontage on Route 9 near the Amherst-Hadley line. The locus was farm land. The sales were of: (A) undeveloped land opposite the locus, April 7, 1956. (B) farm land, three quarters of a mile from the locus, March 3, 1959. (C) undeveloped land, adjoining the locus, May 2,1960. (D) undeveloped land, next to A, May 27, 1963. (E) farm land, 700 feet from the locus, June 1, 1963. [776]*776The elements of proximity or remoteness of the time of the sales, of the location of the sites, and other factors indicating similarity or difference, varying in each instance in relation to the locus, present questions of admissibUity which were not beyond the range of judicial discretion. Johnson v. Lowell, 240 Mass. 546, 549. Lembor v. Framingham, 330 Mass. 461, 463. See Amory v. Commonwealth, 321 Mass. 240, 255-256; Brush Hill Dev. Inc. v. Commonwealth, 338 Mass. 359, 366-368; Leen v. Assessors of Boston, 345 Mass. 494, 505-507. No error of law has been shown.

Frank H. Freedman, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth. Emerson S. Searle (John E. Flanagan with him) for the petitioners.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 N.E.2d 795, 348 Mass. 775, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paradysz-v-commonwealth-mass-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack