People v. Puruncajas

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the second sentence “describes the common ownership requirement in the past tense: ‘provided [that] . . . such lot was held in common ownership’ ”
• avoiding an interpretation that' “would generate irregular and inequitable results . . .”
• presumption rebutted by evidence \warranting a finding contrary to the presumed fact\ that abutter is aggrieved
• “speculation [as to whether named grantor possessed proper] authority [to convey a parcel] on behalf of a trust is insufficient to rebut [the] presumption [of standing]”
• “After examining the legislative history of G.L.c. 40A in detail, the [Preston] court concluded that Legislature did not intend to reject the long-standing merger doctrine . . .”
• lot did not lose protection under second sentence of G. L. c. 40A, § 6, fourth par., merely because owner held three other adjoining lots or because it had ceased to be commonly owned

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).