Patkin v. City of Medford

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Patkin v. City of Medford

124 N.E.2d 249, 332 Mass. 754, 1955 Mass. LEXIS 737

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 8, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 N.E.2d 249 (Patkin v. City of Medford) 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

Patkin v. City of Medford, 124 N.E.2d 249, 332 Mass. 754, 1955 Mass. LEXIS 737 (Mass. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Decision affirmed. This is a petition by a landowner for a binding determination as to the extent her land is affected by the respondent’s zoning ordinance. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 240, § 14A, inserted by St. 1934, c. 263, § 2. The locus is in an apartment house district, where also is permitted general residential and single family residence use. The petitioner contends that because of the small size, irregular shape, narrow street frontage, nearby business uses, and heavy traffic the ordinance is unreasonable as applied to her land, which she desires to use as a display area for automobiles. The judge of the Land Court who took a view found upon all the evidence that considering the character of the district, the location, size, and characteristics of the locus, and the nature and [755]*755use of the adjoining land, the zoning is valid. The burden was upon the petitioner to prove the contrary, and no error appears. Kaplan v. Boston, 330 Mass. 381. Bicknell Realty Co. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 330 Mass. 676.

William R. Gilman & Sidney S. Cross, for the petitioner, submitted a brief. Mark A. Gallagher, Jr., City Solicitor, for the respondent.

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

Decision affirmed. This is a petition by a landowner for a binding determination as to the extent her land is affected by the respondent’s zoning ordinance. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 240, § 14A, inserted by St. 1934, c. 263, § 2. The locus is in an apartment house district, where also is permitted general residential and single family residence use. The petitioner contends that because of the small size, irregular shape, narrow street frontage, nearby business uses, and heavy traffic the ordinance is unreasonable as applied to her land, which she desires to use as a display area for automobiles. The judge of the Land Court who took a view found upon all the evidence that considering the character of the district, the location, size, and characteristics of the locus, and the nature and [755]*755use of the adjoining land, the zoning is valid. The burden was upon the petitioner to prove the contrary, and no error appears. Kaplan v. Boston, 330 Mass. 381. Bicknell Realty Co. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 330 Mass. 676.

William R. Gilman & Sidney S. Cross, for the petitioner, submitted a brief. Mark A. Gallagher, Jr., City Solicitor, for the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 N.E.2d 249, 332 Mass. 754, 1955 Mass. LEXIS 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patkin-v-city-of-medford-mass-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack