Legal Opinion

Donovan v. Suffolk County Apportionment Commissioners

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 5, 1916PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C. J.

These two petitions for writs of mandamus are brought to set aside a report of the commissioners (elected according to St. 1913, c. 835, § 390) dividing Suffolk County into representative districts and apportioning among them the number of representatives allotted under St. 1916, c. 270, § 24, on the ground that it violates the rights of the petitioners secured by art. 21 of the Amendments to the Constitution.

Since the decision of Attorney General v. Apportionment Commissioners, 224 Mass. 598, wherein it was necessary to declare their first report manifestly contrary to the provisions of the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Parker v. State ex rel. PowellIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Denney v. State ex rel. BaslerIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Giddings v. BlackerMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Attorney General v. Suffolk County Apportionment CommissionersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  5. Board of Supervisors v. BlackerMichigan Supreme Court · 1892

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Simon v. Town of NeedhamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
  2. Spector v. Building InspectorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
  3. Caires v. Building CommissionerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
  4. Brooks v. Secretary of the CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
  5. Asbury Park Press, Inc. v. WoolleySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1960

20 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