Legal Opinion

Bailen v. Board of Assessors of Chelsea

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 20, 1922PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDe Courcy, J.

The petitioner was duly appointed a member of the board of assessors, for a period of three years from February 6,1920. On April 4, 1921, the board of aldermen voted that said Bailen “be removed from office on the ground of incompetency and for the best interests of the city; ” and at the same meeting the respondent Abramovitz was elected in his place. It is admitted, for the purposes of this case, that no notice or hearing was given to the petitioner; and that he always discharged the duties of his office faithfully and without criticism. The main question raised by the report is, whether…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Sims v. Board of Fire CommissionersNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  2. Ransom v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
  3. Eckloff v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  4. Ham v. Board of PoliceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
  5. O'Dowd v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Byfield v. City of NewtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
  2. Opinion of the Justices to the SenateMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  3. Dittemore v. DickeyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
  4. McKenna v. WhiteMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  5. Higgins v. License Commissioners of QuincyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941

19 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