Batchelder v. Allied Stores International, Inc.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Dissent
Lynch, J.,
dissenting (with whom Hennessey, C.J., and O’Connor, J., join). In deciding that the plaintiff has a right under art. 9 of the Declaration of Rights to solicit signatures on the defendants’ property, this court has concluded that no “State action” requirement limits the application of this article to the facts of this case. I respectfully dissent.
*94Consideration of the general purposes of our State Constitution persuades me that art. 9 does not apply to private conduct of the type to which the plaintiff objects. This court has said that “[t]he function of a written constitution…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Lloyd Corp. v. TannerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Princeton University v. SchmidSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- State v. SchmidSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
- Alderwood Associates v. Washington Environmental CouncilWashington Supreme Court · 1981
- Tax Commissioner v. PutnamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.