Zussman v. Rent Control Board of Brookline
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1ConcurrenceWilkins, J.
I agree with the result. There are, however, matters of significance not discussed in the court’s opinion.
I read the opinion of the court as saying that (1) a new evidentiary trial is not required at the judicial level, even where confiscation is alleged, (2) a court which hears an appeal in which confiscation is asserted engages in its own analysis of the confiscation claim on the record before the administrative board, and (3) the amount of the mortgage interest obligation payable by the landlord is not an automatic floor in determining the line of confiscation. I agree with these…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Opinion of Justices to House of RepresentativesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1952
- Sherman v. Rent Control Board of BrooklineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Commissioner of InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1970
- Boston Gas Co. v. Department of Public UtilitiesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- Zussman v. Rent Control BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1976