Two other Town hierarchs, Town Administrator Mike Guzinski and Highway Superintendent John Furno (collectively, the Municipal Officials), also came to the scene. By the time the Officers arrived on the scene, the appellant had stretched an orange plastic snowfence across the northernmost boundary of the disputed portion of Cedar Street and was about to erect a similar barrier across the southernmost boundary. Nick Miglionico, Officer Anthony Yannino, and Officer Mark Kaminski (collectively, the Officers) - responded to a report that the appellant had unilaterally closed off the street.
On October 13, 2015, three members of the Town's police force - Lt. The appellant claims - albeit without elaboration - that he thought the appeals court decision meant that he could rescind public access through the disputed section of Cedar Street pending the new trial.
#Coblyn v.kennedy trial
On appeal, though, the judgment was vacated and a new trial ordered. Litigation followed, and the state superior court found in favor of the Town and declared all of Cedar Street to be a public way. It continued to maintain that the disputed portion of the street was a public way. Consequently, he sought to rescind public access across it. After commissioning a survey, the appellant came to believe that the portion of Cedar Street that crossed the Property belonged to him. Part of Cedar Street, which has been used as a public way for many years, cuts through the Property. The appellant owns real estate (the Property), located in the Town. We briefly rehearse the relevant facts and travel of the case. Concluding that the entry of summary judgment was appropriate, we affirm. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants, and the appellant assigns error. After the criminal charges were dismissed, the appellant sued a number of municipal actors (including the police officers). A ruckus ensued, and police officers arrested the appellant for disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct. Plaintiff-appellant Michael Finamore, convinced that the town of Douglas, Massachusetts (the Town), was infringing upon his property rights by allowing the public to traverse a public way that cut through his property, tried to enforce his perceived rights through self-help. on brief for appellees.īefore Howard, Chief Judge, Selya and Barron, Circuit Judges. Heemskerk and Heemskerk Business Litigation PLLC on brief for appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS īart W.
0 kommentar(er)
