Legal Opinion

O'Connor v. Deputy Commissioner & Comptroller of Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided February 25, 1965PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSpiegel, J.

The petitioner, a retired Deputy Commissioner of Banks, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to certify that the petitioner is entitled to receive $1,218.01 for “vacation allowance” pursuant to Rule LV-8 of the “Rules and Regulations Governing Vacation Leave,” which are authorized by G. L. c. 7, § 28, as amended through St. 1963,.c. 352. The respondent appealed from the order of the trial judge that a writ of mandamus issue. The evidence is reported.

We note at the outset that “[i]t is an elementary principle that mandamus will not lie where there is available another and…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Daly v. Mayor of MedfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
  2. SISTERS OF HOLY CROSS OF MASSACHUSETTS v. BrooklineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1964
  3. Madden v. Secretary of the CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1958
  4. Seney v. Board of HealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  5. McCarthy v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. First Church of Christ v. Alcoholic Beverages Control CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1965
  2. Mitchell v. Metropolitan District CommissionMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1976
  3. Department of Public Welfare v. Town of BillericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1966

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API