Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Horton v. Attorney General

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided December 31, 1929PublishedCited by 74 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C.J.

These two petitions, one for a writ of certiorari against the Attorney General and the other for a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of the Commonwealth, having the same ultimate object, have been consolidated for the purpose of being heard together and have been reserved upon the pleadings for our determination.

The pertinent facts disclosed by the record are that under art. 48 of the Amendments to the Constitution an initiative petition setting forth the text of a law proposed, duly signed by ten qualified voters, was submitted to the Attorney General. The title of the proposed law is…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Gorieb v. FoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  2. Opinion of the Justices to the Senate & the House of RepresentativesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
  3. Lehigh Valley Railroad v. Board of Public Utility CommissionersSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  4. Commonwealth v. SaccoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
  5. Vigeant v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927

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

3Cited by74 opinions

  1. Bowe v. Secretary of CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  2. Attorney General v. School Committee of EssexMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  3. Sears v. Treasurer & Receiver GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1951
  4. Massachusetts Teachers Ass'n v. Secretary of the CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
  5. Lowell Gas Co. v. Department of Public UtilitiesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API