Anderson v. Attorney General
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
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
- Pennock v. DialogueSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Loeb v. Columbia Township TrusteesSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Department of Public WorksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Bank of Hamilton v. Lessee of DudleySupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Bowe v. Secretary of CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.