Carroll v. Acting Dir. of Pub. Welfare of Cambridge

5 Citing cases

  1. Pomeroy v. Department of Public Welfare

    3 Mass. App. Ct. 177 (Mass. App. Ct. 1975)   Cited 3 times

    It is now before us by agreement of the parties pursuant to a request made by the members of the panel at the time of argument. See Carroll v. Acting Director of Pub. Welfare, 355 Mass. 182, 183, n. 2 (1969). On January 10, 1964, the plaintiff's then husband secured from the Probate Court for the county of Hampden a decree of divorce nisi from the plaintiff in which she was awarded custody of the three minor children of the parties and he was ordered to make weekly payments to her of $40 for the support of the children.

  2. Graff v. Zoning Board

    277 Conn. 645 (Conn. 2006)   Cited 90 times
    Zoning enforcement officer's studies of number of dogs licensed per household in town, as well as noise complaints by plaintiff's neighbors, "provide[d] a reasonable basis for [board] to have concluded that keeping more than four dogs is both unique and rare in the town, and therefore, not a permissible accessory use of the town's residential property"

    In particular, these sources make it sufficiently clear that it is not anticipated that accessory use provisions will enumerate every conceivable activity that is a permissible accessory use, and that household pets, including dogs, routinely have been construed as potentially limited by accessory use regulations. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 158 Conn. 513; Schwab v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 154 Conn. 480-81; Hume v. Building Inspector, supra, 355 Mass. 182; 2 A. Rathkopf & D. Rathkopf, supra, § 33:16, pp. 33-31 through 33-32; see also footnotes 9 and 10 of this opinion.

  3. Brady v. Brady

    380 Mass. 480 (Mass. 1980)   Cited 33 times
    Discussing this subrogation

    " Id. Moreover, G.L.c. 18, § 21, should be construed in harmony with Federal law. Carroll v. Acting Director of Pub. Welfare of Cambridge, 355 Mass. 182, 187-188 (1969). In this case, the judge's recognition of the department's subrogation rights in his order was particularly appropriate in light of the agreement submitted by the parties which stipulated that" [t]he defendant shall pay as support for said minor child, such amounts as are ordered by the Probate Court, or the Welfare Department, as the case may be. . . ."

  4. ABCD, Inc. v. Commissioner of Public Welfare

    378 Mass. 327 (Mass. 1979)   Cited 13 times
    Exercising jurisdiction over suit against State officials challenging their decision to impound funds appropriated in line item of budget statute on basis that it would be wasteful and contrary to legislative purpose to release funds

    Id. at §§ 601, 603. See Carroll v. Acting Director of Pub. Welfare, 355 Mass. 182, 187 (1969). The Commonwealth has had such a program for many years.

  5. Kearney v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy

    4 Mass. App. Ct. 25 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)

    No rule or regulation of the board or the commissioner was set out in the evidence or otherwise made a part of the transcript of the proceedings before the board. No such rule or regulation appears to have been brought to the attention of the Superior Court (see Finlay v. Eastern Racing Assn. 308 Mass. 20, 26-28 [1941]; White v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. 347 Mass. 367, 373 [1964]; Milligan v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy, 348 Mass. 491, 494-495, 496 [1965]; York v. Sullivan, 369 Mass. 157, 160 [1975]), nor has a stipulation as to any such been presented to us (see Gentile, petitioner, 339 Mass. 319, 320-321 [1959]; Carroll v. Acting Director of Pub. Welfare, 355 Mass. 182, 183, n. 2 [1969]; Baxter v. Commonwealth, 359 Mass. 175, 177, n. 2 [1971]; Pomeroy v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 177, 184, n. 4 [1975]). In such circumstances we shall not take judicial notice of any rule or regulation which might be relevant.