Druker v. City of Boston
| Decision Date | 18 September 1972 |
| Citation | Druker v. City of Boston, 287 N.E.2d 801, 362 Mass. 874 (Mass. 1972) |
| Parties | Bertram A. DRUKER et al. v. CITY OF BOSTON et al |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Robert J. Sherer, Boston, for plaintiffs.
Thomas H. Martin, Asst. Corp. Counsel, for defendants.
Before TAURO, C.J., and QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, and HENNESSEY, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief under G.L. c. 231A in the county court, and the single justice reserved and reported the case without decision. The sole question presented relates to the effect of St.1970, c. 842, § 3(b) (3), on the power of the city of Boston to regulate rents. In litigation between the same parties in the Federal courts, the Court of Appeals characterized the cited statutory provision as a 'draftsman's corkscrew,' and held that the Federal courts should abstain because the question of construction of the statute was for the State courts. Druker v. Sullivan, 458 F.2d 1272, 1276--1277 (1st Cir.). See Hahn v. Gottlieb, 430 F.2d 1243 (1st Cir.); Druker v. Sullivan, 322 F.Supp. 1126 (D.Mass.); Druker v. Sullivan, 334 F.Supp. 861 (D.Mass.). Statute u970, c. 842, § 2, provides that the act 'shall take effect in any city . . . on the thirtieth day following acceptance of its provisions.' The parties to the present suit have stipulated that the 'City of Boston has never accepted the provisions of Chapter 842 of the Acts of 1970,' and both parties therefore urge us to declare that St. 1970, c. 842, has no effect on the power of the city of Boston to regulate rents. The bill must therefore be dismissed because there is no actual controversy as required for relief under G.L. c. 231A, § 1. Duane v. Quincy, 350 Mass. 59, 62, 213 N.E.2d 250. See Marshal House, Inc. v. Rent Control Bd. of Brookline, Mass., 266 N.E.2d 876. a A decree to that effect is...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Columbia Plaza Limited Partnership v. Cowles
...opinion, 334 F.Supp. 861 (D.Mass.1971), aff'd, 458 F.2d 1272 (1st Cir. 1972), opinion after abstention sub nom. Druker v. Boston, 287 N.E.2d 801 (Mass.Sup.Jud.Ct.1972); Stoneridge Apts., Co. v. Lindsay, 303 F.Supp. 677, 679 (S.D.N.Y.1969).15 Moreover, since the federal standard is permissiv......
-
Kargman v. Sullivan, s. 76-1304
...1272 (1st Cir. 1972), on the ground that a possibly dispositive state law issue existed. This proved not to be the case. See 362 Mass. 874, 287 N.E.2d 801 (1972). We subsequently denied plaintiffs' motion to reinstate the appeal and, instead, ordered the case remanded. We were somewhat ambi......
- Druker v. City of Boston