Legal Opinion

Kingston v. McLaughlin

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided December 19, 1972No. Civ. A. 72-3551PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Per curiam

On November 7, 1972, the voters of Massachusetts approved an amendment to the Commonwealth’s constitution which requires state judges attaining the age of seventy to retire. Eleven judges over seventy, who have been sitting prior to the adoption of the amendment, but who are now threatened with involuntary retirement, bring this action seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the constitutional amendment against them.

The judges argue that the amendment constitutes an unconstitutional impairment of the obligation of contract in violation of Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  2. Davis v. GraySupreme Court of the United States · 1873
  3. Dodge v. Board of Ed. of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  4. Indiana Ex Rel. Anderson v. BrandSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  5. Taylor and Marshall v. BeckhamSupreme Court of the United States · 1900

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Matter of CoruzziSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
  2. McCarthy v. Sheriff of Suffolk CountyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
  3. Chasan v. Village District of EastmanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1986
  4. Eagan v. SpellmanWashington Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Quinn v. State Ethics CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987

11 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