any decision that would ‘reflec[t] negatively upon [a] state court’s ability to do so.’”) (quoting Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434, 443, 97 S.Ct. 1911, 52 L.Ed.2d 486 (1977)). Quite to the contrary, this court finds that state procedure does provide adequate remedies. See Streeter v. City of Worcester, 336 Mass. 469, 146 N.E.2d 514, 517 (1957) (“The Land Court had jurisdiction over the 'cause of action, to wit, whether the city was entitled to a decree of foreclosure by force of its tax title.... If, as the plaintiff now contends, the court came to the wrong conclusion in the foreclosure proceeding, [the plaintiff] had the right to bring the case [to the Supreme Judicial Court] by an appeal or by exceptions.”); see also Ludwin v. City of Cambridge, 592 F.2d 606, 609 (1st Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, having raised the claim in the Land
holding witness not licensed as real estate appraiser could not testify as expert on real estate valuation where statute made it unlawful to engage in real estate appraisal without license holding that a tax appeal on real property is a lien on the real estate and not a personal obligation of the landowner recognizing certificates of assessment as adequate evidence of tax liability holding that in some rcases there is an adequate remedy at law for an attack on an illegal or unconstitutional tax through the tax appeal board holding that massachusetts provides an adequate remedy for challenging a real estate tax assessment