Source: http://massachusettslandlords.com/mary-shiel-vs-john-rowell-you-can-cut-branches-if-they-overhang-your-property/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 07:05:40+00:00

Document:
back overhanging branches and intruding roots of your neighbor’s trees.
Norfolk. March 8, 2018. – July 16, 2018.
Nuisance. Trespass. Real Property, Nuisance, Trespass.
District Court Department on July 24, 2015.
A motion to dismiss was heard by Mark S. Coven, J.
William F. Spallina for the plaintiff.
Daniel S. McInnis for the defendants.
injunction demanding that the overhanging branches be cut back.
to disturb existing law. We affirm.
Mass. 284, 290 (1965) (rule does not apply to unhealthy trees).
at liberty to use his land, and all of it, to grow trees.” Id.
vexatious.” Michalson, supra at 234.
driveway, which was covered by debris from her neighbor’s tree.
to be known as the “Massachusetts rule.” See, e.g., Melnick v.
C.S.X. Corp., 312 Md. 511, 520 (1988).
property. Whitesell v. Houlton, 2 Haw. App. 365, 367 (1981).
branches or intruding roots. Id.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1569 (10th ed. 2014).
land than they were when the Massachusetts rule was adopted.
supports certainty in the law.
relitigation.” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 135 S. Ct.
precedent often influences individual action.”4 Halley v.
Birbiglia, 390 Mass. 540, 545 (1983).
outweigh the values underlying stare decisis.” Franklin v.
(2010), citing Young v. Garwacki, 380 Mass. 162, 166 (1980).
Corp., 457 Mass. 368, 371-372 (2010).
true for their neighbors to monitor and trim encroaching trees.
Massachusetts rule for that reason. See, e.g., Fancher v.
proportion to any harm likely to result.” W.L. Prosser & W.P.
life”). See also Herring v. Lisbon Partners Credit Fund, Ltd.
quoting Mahurin, supra at 692-693.
adjoining property of others.” Michalson, 275 Mass. at 233.
back of overhanging branches and intruding roots.
allowing the defendants’ motion to dismiss is affirmed.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.