seal

Court Case Record ARTHUR LIPPMAN & another vs. TOWN OF HOPKINTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 2010-P-1776 UID(a015)


ARTHUR LIPPMAN & another vs. TOWN OF HOPKINTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2010-P-1776


 
Case Number2010-P-1776
Case TitleARTHUR LIPPMAN & another vs. TOWN OF HOPKINTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyMiddlesex
CourtMiddlesex Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date01/11/2010
Close Date08/31/2011

Parties

CounselNameType
George F. Hailer, EsquireArthur LippmanPlaintiff/Appellant
George F. Hailer, EsquireDaryl LippmanPlaintiff/Appellant
Jonathan Simpson, Esquire Thomas J. Harrington, EsquireTown of Hopkinton Conservation CommissioDefendant/Appellee
William M. PezzoniOther interested party
David McKayOther interested party
David K. McCay, EsquireKeith PomeroyIntervener/Appellee
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
10/08/2010 #1 Entered.
10/08/2010 #2 Notice of entry sent.
10/12/2010 #3 Additional docket fee in the amount of $300.00 received from George F. Hailer, Esquire.
11/17/2010 #4 SERVICE of brief & appendix for Plaintiffs/Appellants Arthur Lippman, and Daryl Lippman.
12/20/2010 #5 SERVICE of brief for Defendant/Appellee Town of Hopkinton Conservation Commission.
01/05/2011 #6 Notice of intervenor, appearance and joinder in brief of appellee, filed by Keith Pomeroy.
01/07/2011 #7 RE#5: Keith Pomeroy shall be entered as an intervenor on the Appeals Court docket. It is noted that pursuant to MRAP 16(j), Mr. Pomeroy has indicated his intent to join in the appellee's brief, and incorporates by reference the facts and arguments stated therein. *Notice.
05/09/2011 #8 Notice of 06/08/2011, 9:30 AM argument at John Adams Courthouse, Courtroom 4 sent.
06/08/2011 Oral argument held. (Trainor, J., Fecteau, J., Hanlon, J.).
07/07/2011 Letter pursuant to MRAP 16(l) filed by Arthur Lippman and Daryl Lippman. *@
08/03/2011 Decision: Full Opinion (Fecteau, J.) The order allowing summary judgment in favor of the commission must be reversed, and the case is remanded for the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, declaratory judgment is to enter in favor of the plaintiffs that declares that the purported denial by the commission was of no effect and that the plaintiffs' project "is effectively governed by the DEP's superseding order of conditions." *Notice.
08/31/2011 RESCRIPT to Trial Court.