City of Boston v. Hospital Transp. Services, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 March 1978 |
| Parties | CITY OF BOSTON et al. v. HOSPITAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., et al. Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
William J. Smith, Asst. Corp. Counsel, for the city of Boston.
Richard J. Lettieri, Chelsea, for Massachusetts Port Authority, intervener.
Arthur M. White, Framingham, for Hospital Transp. Services, Inc. & another.
Terry Jean Seligmann, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Department of Public Utilities, intervener.
Before HALE, C. J., and ARMSTRONG and BROWN, JJ.
The plaintiffs, who include, in addition to the city of Boston, fifteen taxicab drivers licensed by the city, brought this action to enjoin the two original defendants from operating buses or limousines between Logan International Airport and various municipalities west and north of Boston. The licenses under which the defendants conducted their bus services had been issued by the Department of Public Utilities, which moved to and was allowed to intervene in the action to defend the validity of the licenses. Also intervening, for the same purpose, was the Massachusetts Port Authority, which operates the airport. A District Court judge sitting in the Superior Court by designation ruled that the licenses were valid and dismissed the action.
The sole contention raised by the plaintiffs on appeal is that the approval of the mayor of the city of Boston is a prerequisite to the validity of the licenses in question and that the mayor's approval has been neither sought nor given. The defendants maintain that a license issued, as these were, under the second paragraph of G.L. c. 159A, § 1 (), does not require submission to or approval by the mayor.
The contentions of the parties may be understood by comparing the relevant portions of three licensing statutes in order of passage. The first paragraph of G.L. c. 159A, § 1, was in effect for many years prior to 1975. It provides that
In June, 1975, the Legislature passed a special act (St.1975, c. 306) which provided that, "(n)otwithstanding any provisions of (G.L. c. 159A) . . . the department of public utilities may, with the approval of the mayor of the city of Boston, issue licenses for the operation" of bus or limousine services such as those conducted by the defendants.
In December, by St.1975, c. 740, the Legislature added to G.L. c. 159A, § 1, the second paragraph, which again provided for the issuance of licenses by resort to the Department of Public Utilities but in a manner which left not wholly certain whether mayoral approval of such a license was still required. The second paragraph reads, in part:
The argument of the plaintiffs focuses principally on the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pobieglo v. Monsanto Co.
...a direct loss because of the tortiously caused death of a benefactor." Hanebuth, supra at 145. See Boston v. Hospital Transp. Servs., Inc., 6 Mass.App.Ct. 198, 201-202, 374 N.E.2d 338 (1978) (remedial legislation should be construed "so as to accomplish more fully the remedial purpose which......
-
Treasurer of Norfolk County v. County Com'rs of Norfolk
...v. Department of Educ., --- Mass. ---, --- A, 381 N.E.2d 922 (1978); Boston v. Hospital Transp. Servs., Inc., 6 Mass.App. ---, --- B, 374 N.E.2d 338 (1978). Moreover, even if the ten-day provision of § 10 could somehow be regarded as carrying over into § 11, we would expect it to have no mo......
-
Serreze v. YWCA of Western Massachusetts, Inc.
...Mass. 468, 470, 530 N.E.2d 1239 (1988). Any ambiguities are to be resolved toward the same end. Boston v. Hospital Transp. Servs., Inc., 6 Mass.App.Ct. 198, 201-202, 374 N.E.2d 338 (1978). Following these principles, in construing the term "tenant", courts have looked beyond rigid common la......
-
City Council of Boston v. Department of Public Utilities
...of Boston and locations outside the city of Boston . . . ." See Boston v. Hospital Transp. Servs. Inc., --- Mass.App. ---, ---, A 374 N.E.2d 338 (1978). Although the DPU had not issued any licenses pursuant to c. 306 at the time this action was commenced, we think an actual controversy exis......