Legal Opinion

Quincy Ornamental Iron Works, Inc. v. Findlen

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 30, 1967PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSpiegel, J.

This is a bill for declaratory relief seeking to have declared invalid the awarding of a certain subcontract by the Medford Housing Authority (Authority) to Fred J. Findlen & Sons (Findlen), which was also awarded the general contract. The judge made “Findings, Rulings and Order for Decree.” A final decree was entered declaring, in substance, that Findlen “does not have the legal right to perform the sub-trade ’ ’ for which the subcontract was awarded. Findlen was also enjoined from proceeding further with work on the subcontract and from receiving further payments for such work, and the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Gifford v. Commissioner of Public HealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1952
  2. Mullholland v. State Racing CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
  3. Attorney General v. Trustees of Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  4. Grande & Son, Inc. v. School Housing Committee of North ReadingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
  5. East Side Construction Co. v. Town of AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1952

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Ardmare Construction Co. v. FreedmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
  2. Interstate Engineering Corp. v. City of FitchburgMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
  3. Sutter Bros. Construction Co. v. City of LeavenworthSupreme Court of Kansas · 1985
  4. John T. Callahan & Sons, Inc. v. City of MaldenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
  5. Petricca Construction Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1994

19 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