Sally Sanford v. Arthur H. Vinal, Jr., Trustee, & Others
Massachusetts Appeals Court
552 N.E.2d 579 (1990)

- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Sally Sanford (plaintiff) was a descendant of Edward Wanton, a leader of the Quaker community in colonial America. Wanton died in 1716 and was thought to be buried alongside other family members in a tract of land in Massachusetts. There was no grave marker, proof of the burial, record of family members visiting or maintaining the grave, or evidence recording the specific plot of land owned by the Wanton family. The land in the area Wanton lived was bought and sold over the years, and in 1986, Arthur H. Vinal, Jr. (defendant), acting as the trustee of Blackthorne Realty Trust, filed an application with the planning board of Norwell, Massachusetts, to subdivide a parcel of land into housing lots. The parcel included a tract of land Wanton’s descendants believed to be his burial ground. The board approved the application with the condition that Vinal identity the Wanton homestead site and burial plot. Vinal hired an archaeological service to attempt to do so, but they were unable to identify the location of the burial ground or to find any graves or other markings of a cemetery. The planning board approved Vinal’s application and ruled that its conditions had been met to a satisfactory degree based on his attempts to comply. Sanford filed suit before construction could begin, arguing that as a descendant of Wanton, she maintained a right to enter and visit the burial ground, and that right would be infringed by the development. The lower court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Armstrong, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.