Wolf v. Commissioner of Public Welfare

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Wolf v. Commissioner of Public Welfare

308 N.E.2d 920, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 812, 1974 Mass. App. LEXIS 749

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedMarch 28, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 308 N.E.2d 920 (Wolf v. Commissioner of Public Welfare) 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

Wolf v. Commissioner of Public Welfare, 308 N.E.2d 920, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 812, 1974 Mass. App. LEXIS 749 (Mass. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In the opinion of a majority of the court (see Buie 1:18 of the Appeals Court, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 892 [1972])¹ this "Bill in Equity for Declaratory and Injunctive Belief’ was properly dismissed for its failure to set forth an “actual controversy” within the meaning of G. L. c. 231A, § 1, or to suggest how a grant of the [813]*813declaratory relief prayed for would “remove an uncertainty” within the meaning of G. L. c. 231A, § 2. See Poremba v. Springfield, 354 Mass. 432, 435 (1968); Greenberg v. Assessors of Cambridge, 360 Mass. 418, 420-421 (1971). Even if the bill had complied with either of the sections cited, it contained no allegation which would have required the court to grant the injunctive relief against a public officer which was specifically prayed for. See Times Film Corp. v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 333 Mass. 62, 63 (1955), and the cases cited therein; contrast Board of Health of Woburn v. Sousa, 338 Mass. 547, 553 (1959). The final decree is to be modified to provide that the dismissal is without prejudice and, as so modified, is affirmed. See Backman v. Commonwealth, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 851 (1973).

Richard A. Cohen (Jeffrey W. Kobrick with him) for the plaintiff. Nicholas P. Arenella, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

So ordered.

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

In the opinion of a majority of the court (see Buie 1:18 of the Appeals Court, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 892 [1972])¹ this "Bill in Equity for Declaratory and Injunctive Belief’ was properly dismissed for its failure to set forth an “actual controversy” within the meaning of G. L. c. 231A, § 1, or to suggest how a grant of the [813]*813declaratory relief prayed for would “remove an uncertainty” within the meaning of G. L. c. 231A, § 2. See Poremba v. Springfield, 354 Mass. 432, 435 (1968); Greenberg v. Assessors of Cambridge, 360 Mass. 418, 420-421 (1971). Even if the bill had complied with either of the sections cited, it contained no allegation which would have required the court to grant the injunctive relief against a public officer which was specifically prayed for. See Times Film Corp. v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 333 Mass. 62, 63 (1955), and the cases cited therein; contrast Board of Health of Woburn v. Sousa, 338 Mass. 547, 553 (1959). The final decree is to be modified to provide that the dismissal is without prejudice and, as so modified, is affirmed. See Backman v. Commonwealth, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 851 (1973).

Richard A. Cohen (Jeffrey W. Kobrick with him) for the plaintiff. Nicholas P. Arenella, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 N.E.2d 920, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 812, 1974 Mass. App. LEXIS 749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-commissioner-of-public-welfare-massappct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack