Crowell v. Attorney General

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Crowell v. Attorney General

322 N.E.2d 87, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 700, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 697

DecidedJanuary 30, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 322 N.E.2d 87 (Crowell v. Attorney General) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crowell v. Attorney General, 322 N.E.2d 87, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 700, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 697 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In his appeal from the order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus, brought for the purpose of challenging the validity of an amendment to the zoning by-law of the town of Dennis, the petitioner’s sole contention is that the selectmen of the town had no power to call the spe[701]*701cial town meeting at which the amendment was adopted or to include an article concerning the proposed amendment in the warrant for any town meeting because of the absence of a request therefor by the number of registered voters prescribed by the sixth or by the seventh sentence of G. L. c. 39, § 10 (as amended through St. 1964, c. 1, § 1), and that the action of the town meeting was therefore invalid. We do not pause to consider the propriety of the remedy sought by the petitioner, as we think it clear from the first sentence of § 10 that a board of selectmen has the power to call a special town meeting and to insert articles in its warrant on their own initiative and that the sixth and seventh sentences of that section do no more than require selectmen to exercise those powers when requested to do so by the specified numbers of voters. See Walsworth v. Casassa, 219 Mass. 200, 204-205 (1914); Tilden, Town Government, 38 B. U. L. Rev. 347, 349 (1958); Johnson & others, Town Meeting Time, § 4, at 12-13 (1962).

Charles F. Crowell, pro se. Howard Whitehead, Deputy Assistant Attorney General (Walter H. Mayo, III, Assistant Attorney General, with him) for the Attorney General.

Order denying petition affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In his appeal from the order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus, brought for the purpose of challenging the validity of an amendment to the zoning by-law of the town of Dennis, the petitioner’s sole contention is that the selectmen of the town had no power to call the spe[701]*701cial town meeting at which the amendment was adopted or to include an article concerning the proposed amendment in the warrant for any town meeting because of the absence of a request therefor by the number of registered voters prescribed by the sixth or by the seventh sentence of G. L. c. 39, § 10 (as amended through St. 1964, c. 1, § 1), and that the action of the town meeting was therefore invalid. We do not pause to consider the propriety of the remedy sought by the petitioner, as we think it clear from the first sentence of § 10 that a board of selectmen has the power to call a special town meeting and to insert articles in its warrant on their own initiative and that the sixth and seventh sentences of that section do no more than require selectmen to exercise those powers when requested to do so by the specified numbers of voters. See Walsworth v. Casassa, 219 Mass. 200, 204-205 (1914); Tilden, Town Government, 38 B. U. L. Rev. 347, 349 (1958); Johnson & others, Town Meeting Time, § 4, at 12-13 (1962).

Charles F. Crowell, pro se. Howard Whitehead, Deputy Assistant Attorney General (Walter H. Mayo, III, Assistant Attorney General, with him) for the Attorney General.

Order denying petition affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

322 N.E.2d 87, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 700, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowell-v-attorney-general-massappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack