From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. Planning Board

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Jan 31, 1978
372 N.E.2d 279 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978)

Opinion

January 31, 1978.

Athur E. Nicholson, for the plaintiffs, submitted a brief.

Paul R. Schneider ( George M. Ford with him) for the defendant.


We need not consider whether the judge was correct in ruling 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.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Robinson v. Planning Board

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Jan 31, 1978
372 N.E.2d 279 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978)
Case details for

Robinson v. Planning Board

Case Details

Full title:ELAINE ROBINSON others vs. PLANNING BOARD OF HINGHAM

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Jan 31, 1978

Citations

372 N.E.2d 279 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978)
372 N.E.2d 279