Morganelli v. Building Inspector of Canton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• where the rulings in the prior case were “‘inextricably interwoven with the rulings of law and order for judgment’” in the second action
• when municipality is party to zoning litigation, it is presumed to represent all its citizens
• in weighing the factors which led the Court to rule that an abutter is bound by the prior mandamus action, the Court deemed “most important the limited nature of the [abutter’s] interest”
• question of privity “depends on the nature of the plaintiffs’ interest, whether that interest was represented in [the prior litigation], and whether there are special circumstances or due process considerations which make it unfair to bind the plaintiffs to that judgment”
• question of privity “depends on the nature of the plaintiffs’ interest, whether that interest was represented in [the prior litigation], and whether there are special circumstances or due process considerations which make it unfair to bind the plaintiffs to that judgment”
• same violation of zoning law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).