Your case is unique, but you are not alone.

About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.

  • Know your judge

    Every judge has a pattern — what they grant, what they deny, how they handle the kinds of motions your case will see.

  • Know your attorney

    See an attorney’s actual track record — case types, courts, and how they’ve performed in front of this judge before.

  • Know your court

    Every courthouse has its own rhythm — filing-to-resolution times, common dispositions, how often cases like yours settle.

Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?

How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?

AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes and we don’t recommend changing your attorney — that’s a conversation for you and them. We just show you what the record already says.

Full Analytics Report

  • Complete case narrative
  • Judge details and rulings
  • Case disposition and outcome
  • All docket entries
  • Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Photo of Massachusetts Unified County

Court

Massachusetts Unified County

Massachusetts

View Court Profile

Case Information

Filed 2022-01-25
Status Closed
Type Mtb Try Title, G.l. Chapter 240, 1 5
Docket 61 entries
Disposition judgment entered

Parties

Plaintiff Town Of Hull
Defendant Ferrara, Ii, John|Ferrara, Kathleen

Lawyers

Docket Entries

  1. Case entered in the Appeals Court as Case No. 2024-P-1317.
  2. Case assigned to the Average Track per Land Court Standing Order 1:04.
  3. Land Court miscellaneous filing fee Receipt: 427945 Date: 01/25/2022
  4. Land Court surcharge Receipt: 427945 Date: 01/25/2022
  5. Land Court summons Receipt: 427945 Date: 01/25/2022
  6. Uniform Counsel Certificate for Civil Cases filed by Plaintiff.
  7. Appearance of Nathaniel Stevens, Esq., James Burton Lampke, Esq., Michael J O'Neill, Esq. for Town of Hull, filed
  8. The case has been assigned to the A Track. Notice sent. Notice of Judge and Track Assignment was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Nathaniel Stevens, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Michael J O'Neill, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: James Burton Lampke, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: John Ferrara, II No addresses available Defendant: Kathleen Ferrara No addresses available null: File Copy Sent On: 02/17/2022 14:20:20
  9. Acceptance of Service for Defendants by their Lawyer, filed.
  10. Event Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Case Management Conference Date: 04/12/2022 Time: 09:30 AM
  11. Defendant's Answer to Complaint and Counterclaim, filed.
  12. Defendant's Answer to Complaint and Counterclaim (with Exhibits A and B), filed.
  13. Plaintiff's Answer to Defendants' Counterclaim, filed (by email).
  14. Joint Case Management Memorandum, filed.
  15. Event Resulted: Case Management Conference scheduled on: 04/12/2022 09:30 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding April 12, 2022. Case management conference held by videoconference. Attorneys James B. Lampke and Nathaniel Stevens appeared for the plaintiff, and Attorney Jeffrey H. Katzenstein appeared for the defendants. The municipal plaintiff has brought this try title action pursuant to G.L. c. 240, 1-5 concerning a paper street known as Beach Avenue in Hull. Defendants own lots on either side of the paper street and claim ownership of the land between those lots by operation of the Derelict Fee Statute. Defendants also claim that they have been using a path across the paper street for more than 20 years to get to their lot which has frontage on the Atlantic Ocean and, alternatively, have acquired fee ownership of or easement rights in the paper street by adverse possession. Following colloquy, the court adopted the parties' proposed discovery schedule as follows: completion of all discovery by May 19, 2023 with initial expert reports or responses to expert interrogatories due by January 6, 2023, and any rebuttal expert reports or supplemental responses to expert interrogatories due by March 3, 2023. The parties shall file a joint written report by May 26, 2023 that notifies the court about the completion of discovery and, if appropriate, proposes a briefing schedule for any dispositive motions. (Smith, J.).
  16. Joint Case Management Report, filed.
  17. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend its Answer to Defendants' Counterclaim and Plaintiff's Amended Answer to Defendants' Counterclaim (without signatures), filed.
  18. June 26, 2023: The court adopts the summary judgment briefing schedule proposed by the parties. (Smith, J.) Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Nathaniel Stevens, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Michael J O'Neill, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: James Burton Lampke, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Adam J Brodsky, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 06/26/2023 15:11:25
  19. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend its Answer to Defendants' Counterclaim ALLOWED (Smith, J.). Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Nathaniel Stevens, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Michael J O'Neill, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: James Burton Lampke, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Adam J Brodsky, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Jeffrey Hunt Katzenstein, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 07/11/2023 08:35:40
  20. Plaintiff's Amended Answer to Defendants' Counterclaim (with signatures), filed.
  21. Joint Motion to Enlarge Deadlines to File Dispositive Motions and Oppositions Thereto, filed.
  22. September 13, 2023. Joint Motion to Enlarge Deadlines to File Dispositive Motions and Oppositions Thereto ALLOWED. The Court orders that counsel submit a new proposed briefing schedule by September 15, 2023. (Smith, J.). Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Nathaniel Stevens, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Michael J O'Neill, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: James Burton Lampke, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Adam J Brodsky, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Jeffrey Hunt Katzenstein, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 09/14/2023 11:39:00
  23. Joint Proposed New Briefing Schedule, filed.
  24. September 15, 2023. Joint Proposed New Briefing Schedule ADOPTED by the court. Deadline to file and serve any motion for summary judgment is October 18, 2023. Deadline to file and serve all responses to any motion for summary judgment is November 15, 2023. (Smith, J.). Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Nathaniel Stevens, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Michael J O'Neill, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: James Burton Lampke, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Adam J Brodsky, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Jeffrey Hunt Katzenstein, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 09/18/2023 13:59:31
  25. Second Joint Motion to Enlarge Deadlines to File Dispositive Motions and Responses Thereto , filed.
  26. October 16, 2023. Second Joint Motion to Enlarge Deadlines to File Dispositive Motions and Responses Thereto, ALLOWED. The briefing schedule proposed by the parties is adopted. (Smith, J.) Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Nathaniel Stevens, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Michael J O'Neill, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: James Burton Lampke, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Adam J Brodsky, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Jeffrey Hunt Katzenstein, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 10/16/2023 10:26:25
  27. Third Joint Motion to Enlarge Deadlines to File Dispositive Motions and Responses Thereto, filed.
  28. December 15, 2023. Third Joint Motion to Enlarge Deadlines to File Dispositive Motions and Responses Thereto is ALLOWED. The court adopts the briefing schedule proposed by the parties. (Smith, J.). Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Nathaniel Stevens, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Michael J O'Neill, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: James Burton Lampke, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Adam J Brodsky, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Jeffrey Hunt Katzenstein, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 12/15/2023 10:37:41
  29. Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed. (Courtesy copy received on February 2, 2024)
  30. Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed. (Courtesy copy received on February 2, 2024)
  31. Statement of Material Facts in Support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed. (Courtesy copy received on February 2, 2024)
  32. Appendix of Exhibits to Statement of Material Facts in Support of Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed. (Courtesy copy received on February 2, 2024)
  33. Plaintiff Town of Hull's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Complaint and Count I of Defendants' Counterclaim, filed.
  34. Plaintiff Town of Hull's Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Complaint and Count 1 of Defendants'' Counterclaim, filed.
  35. Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts, filed.
  36. Plaintiff Town of Hull Appendix in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
  37. Plaintiff Town of Hull's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed. (Courtesy copy received on 03/14/2024)
  38. Plaintiff Town of Hull's Memorandum of Law In Support of Its Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed. (Courtesy copy received on 03/14/2024)
  39. Plaintiff Town of Hull's Appendix In Support of Its Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed. (Courtesy copy received on 03/14/2024)
  40. Plaintiff Town of Hull's Response to Statement of Material Facts In Support of Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgement, filed. (Courtesy copy received on 03/14/2024)
  41. Defendants' Memorandum of Law In Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed.
  42. Appendix of Exhibits to Statement of Material Facts In Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed.
  43. Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts, filed.
  44. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Motion Date: 05/13/2024 Time: 02:00 PM
  45. Motion to Stay and Postpone May 13, 2024 Hearing on Motions for Summary Judgment, filed.
  46. Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Stay/Postpone Summary Judgment Hearing, filed.
  47. Plaintiff's Motion to Postpone May 13, 2024 Hearing on Motions for Summary Judgment, filed.
  48. Event Resulted: Motion scheduled on: 05/13/2024 02:00 PM Has been: Continued Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  49. Notice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Nathaniel Stevens, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Michael J O'Neill, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: James Burton Lampke, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Adam J Brodsky, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Jeffrey Hunt Katzenstein, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 05/09/2024 15:56:53
  50. Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Motion Date: 06/13/2024 Time: 10:30 AM
  51. Event Resulted: Motion scheduled on: 06/13/2024 10:30 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding June 13, 2024. Motion hearing held via videoconference. Attorney James Lampke and Attorney Nathaniel Stevens appeared for the plaintiff. Attorney Adam Brodsky and Attorney Jeffrey Katzenstein appeared for the defendants. Before the court were cross motions for summary judgment. The question before the court concerns the ownership of the unbuilt section of Beach Avenue in Hull that lies between two parcels owned by the defendants. Attorney Stevens argued that summary judgment should be granted to the plaintiff because it acquired the disputed area of Beach Avenue by virtue a 1913 deed and the 1915 decision by the Supreme Judicial Court in Hobart v. Towle. Attorney Stevens argued further that, even if Hobart does not control, the plaintiff nonetheless holds title to the disputed area because of language in certain 1886 deeds to the defendants' predecessor in title reserving rights to the grantor, thereby removing it from the operation of the Derelict Fee Statute. Attorney Brodsky argued that summary judgment should be granted to the defendants because the deed language identified by the plaintiff did not reserve the fee interest in Beach Avenue and, therefore, by operation of the Derelict Fee Statute, the defendants own the section of Beach Avenue that runs between their lots. Attorney Brodsky argued further that Hobart is not controlling precedent because that case concerned a different street and/or property and was decided prior to the enactment of the Derelict Fee Statute, so it is no longer good law. The court asked about the basis for the difference of opinion between the plaintiff's and the defendants' expert title examiners. Attorney Brodsky stated that the title examiners differ as to whether the "reservation" language in the 1886 deeds was adequate for the grantor to have reserved a fee interest in certain streets including Beach Avenue. Attorney Stevens agreed and added that they also disagree as to whether the Derelict Fee Statute exceptions apply. Following argument, the court took the matter under advisement and will issue a decision in due course. (Smith, J.).
  52. Notice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Nathaniel Stevens, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Michael J O'Neill, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: James Burton Lampke, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Adam J Brodsky, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Jeffrey Hunt Katzenstein, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 06/13/2024 15:18:29
  53. Decision on Motion for Summary Judgment, issued. (Copies emailed to Attorneys Nathaniel Stevens, Michael O'Neill, James Lampke, Adam Brodsky, and Jeffrey Katzenstein) Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T.
  54. Final Judgment entered. (Copies emailed to Attorneys Nathaniel Stevens, Michael O'Neill, James Lampke, Adam Brodsky, and Jeffrey Katzenstein) Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T.
  55. Notice of Appeal by Town of Hull to the Appeals Court filed.
  56. Plaintiff's/Appellant's Notice Pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 9, filed.
  57. Notice of Service of Notice of Appeal sent to Adam J Brodsky, Esq., Jeffrey Hunt Katzenstein, Esq.
  58. CORRECTION: Due to clerical error, the following correction was made to the docket on October 24, 2024: The corrected language is "(02/28/2022) Defendant's Answer to Complaint and Counterclaim, filed." and the following original text is stricken: "(03/03/2022) Answer of John Ferrara, II, Kathleen Ferrara filed. and counterclaim."
  59. CORRECTION: Due to clerical error, the following correction was made to the docket on October 24, 2024: The corrected language is "(03/03/2022) Defendant's Answer to Complaint and Counterclaim (with Exhibits A and B), filed." and the following original text is stricken: "(03/03/2022) Exhibits A and B to Defendant's Answer and Counterclaim, filed.."
  60. Notice of Assembly of Record on Appeal sent to the Clerk of the Appeals Court.
  61. Notice of Assembly of Record on Appeal sent to all counsel of record.

See the patterns behind this case

The free view above tells you who’s in the room. The detailed reports below show how the room tends to behave — using the same public records lawyers quietly rely on before every hearing.

  • Judge Report

    How this judge has ruled in cases like yours — case mix, motion outcomes, and historical docket. Judges set the floor of what’s possible in your courtroom.

  • Attorney vs Judge Report

    Everything in the Judge Report, plus how your attorney has actually performed in front of this judge. Attorneys move you off the floor — or don’t.

One-time payment, no subscription. Reports describe past public court activity — they don’t predict outcomes and they aren’t legal advice.

Get Free Case Details

Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.

By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.

Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.

Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In

Featured in Forbes, Bloomberg, The New Yorker, Above The Law, American Bar Association, and more