Legal Opinion
Attorney General v. Suffolk County Apportionment Commissioners
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 8, 1916PublishedCited by 67 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C. J.
These proceedings are brought to test the legality of the division into representative districts of the fifty-four representatives to the General Court apportioned to Suffolk County by St. 1916, c. 270, § 24. This division is required to be made by a board of nine commissioners elected by the voters of Suffolk County. St. 1913, c. 835, § 390, provides as follows:
“At the annual State election in the year nineteen hundred and fifteen, and in every tenth year thereafter, nine commissioners shall be elected for the county of Suffolk, for the performance of the duties *600hereinafter specified. Five…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- McPherson v. BlackerSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. CunningamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Swan v. Justices of Superior CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Parker v. State ex rel. PowellIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
- State ex rel. Lamb v. CunninghamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by67 opinions
- Jones v. FreemanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943
- Horton v. Attorney GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
- Attorney General v. City of MethuenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Commonwealth v. KozlowskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Brooks v. Secretary of the CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.