Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1978

Robinson v. Planning Board

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Decided January 31, 1978

6 Mass. App. Ct. 835; 372 N.E.2d 279; 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 664

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Bartell v. Wellesley Housing Authority (Mass. App. Ct. 1990)
Pentecost v. Town of Spencer (Mass. App. Ct. 1990)
Tebo v. Board of Appeals of Shrewsbury (Mass. App. Ct. 1986)
Yaro v. Board of Appeals of Newburyport (Mass. App. Ct. 1980)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

We need not consider whether the judge was correct in *836ruling that the meeting of the defendant board was an "emergency” meeting as defined by G. L. c. 39, § 23A (as appearing in St. 1976, c. 397, § 5), and as used in § 23B (as appearing in St. 1976, c. 397, §6) because the judge made an alternative ruling, as a matter of discretion, declining to invalidate the questioned action of the board. Section 23B, as so appearing, provides, among other things, that a court "may invalidate any action taken at any meeting at which any provision of this section has been violated____” We decline to accept the plaintiffs’ suggestion that we treat the auxiliary verb "may” as meaning "shall,” as to do so would do violence to the purposes for which § 23B was enacted. See Abbene v. Election Commrs. of Revere, 348 Mass. 247, 250-251 (1964). The judge had discretion to invalidate or not (Nantucket Land Council, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Nantucket, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 206, 213 [1977]; Kelley v. Planning Bd of Dennis, ante 24, 26-27 [1978]), and nothing in the record indicates any abuse of that discretion.

Athur E. Nicholson, for the plaintiffs, submitted a brief. Paul R. Schneider (George M. Ford with him) for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.