Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Anderson v. Attorney General

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 18, 2018No. SJC 12422Published

1Concurrence

LENK, J. (concurring).

I concur with the result and with much of the court's reasoning as to whether Initiative Petition 15-17 contains related subjects. I write separately because I agree with the dissent's view that the mandate in art. 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution requiring that a petition contain "only subjects ... which are related or which are mutually dependent" is disjunctive in nature; it sets out two alternatives and calls for two different analyses. I agree, further, with the dissent that the court should consider the phrase "mutually dependent" as it would…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Pennock v. DialogueSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
  2. Loeb v. Columbia Township TrusteesSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  3. General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Department of Public WorksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
  4. Bank of Hamilton v. Lessee of DudleySupreme Court of the United States · 1829
  5. Bowe v. Secretary of CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946

23 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