Hurst v. State Ballot Law Commission
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtFried, J.
This court’s order of July 14, 1998, affirmed the ruling of the State Ballot Law Commission (commission) that the plaintiffs did not comply with the commission’s discovery rule, 801 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.01(8)(f), as modified by 950 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.03(18) (1993), and thus failed to challenge *117with sufficient particularity signatures from Barnstable and Berkshire counties. This opinion states the reasons for that order.
I
The plaintiffs originally challenged a decision of the commission to include on the November, 1998, Statewide ballot a referendum to repeal Chapter 164 of the Acts of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- City of Gloucester v. Civil Service CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- Torres v. Commissioner of CorrectionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
- Boston Police Superior Officers Federation v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1993
- Commissioner of Health & Hospitals v. Civil Service CommissionMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1987
- McCarthy v. Secretary of the CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Inc. v. Energy Facilities Siting BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2010
- Friends & Fishers of Edgartown Great Pond, Inc. v. Department of Environmental ProtectionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
- Automobile Insurers Bureau of Massachusetts v. Commissioner of InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
- Barry Graham Armstrong v. Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth Securities DivisionMassachusetts Superior Court · 2022
- Cruz v. WaldmanMassachusetts Superior Court · 2005
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.