Legal Opinion

Carney v. Attorney General

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided July 13, 2006PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Marshall, CJ.

The plaintiffs, four Massachusetts voters, filed suit in the county court to quash the Attorney General’s certification of Initiative Petition 05-05, entitled “An Act to protect dogs” (petition), and to enjoin the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary) from placing the petition on the 2006 Statewide ballot. See art. 48, The Initiative, Part II, and The Referendum, Part III, of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth.3 If enacted into law by a majority of voters, the petition would dismantle the dog racing industry in Massachusetts by repealing the provisions of…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Selectmen of Topsfield v. State Racing CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
  2. Massachusetts Teachers Ass'n v. Secretary of the CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
  3. Attorney General v. City of MethuenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
  4. Loring v. YoungMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
  5. Bates v. Director of the Office of Campaign & Political FinanceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Finch v. Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2011
  2. Abdow v. Attorney GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014
  3. Carney v. Attorney GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
  4. Hensley v. Attorney General Allen v. Attorney GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2016
  5. Dunn v. Attorney GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2016

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

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

Powered by the Exa API