Massachusetts v. Feeney
| Decision Date | 08 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-265,76-265 |
| Citation | 429 U.S. 66,97 S.Ct. 345,50 L.Ed.2d 224 |
| Parties | Commonwealth of MASSACHUSETTS et al. v. Helen B. FEENEY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Nov. 8, 1976.
This Court, on its own motion, hereby certifies to the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, pursuant to Rule 3:21 of the Rules of that court, the question of law hereinafter set forth.
On Feeney against the Massachusetts Director of Civil Service (now designated "Personnel Administrator of the Commonwealth") and members of the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission, declaring unconstitutional the Massachusetts veterans' preference statute, Mass.Gen.Laws c. 31, § 23, and enjoining its enforcement by said state officers. 415 F.Supp. 485 (1976).
The Attorney General for the Commonwealth, who appeared for all parties defendant in the District Court, has filed a Jurisdictional Statement in this Court stating, at 1-2, that the same is filed "on behalf of the Personnel Administrator of the Commonwealth and the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission," the state officers against whom the District Court judgment was entered. However, the Personnel Administrator of the Commonwealth and the members of the Civil Service Commission have advised the Clerk of this Court, by letter of September 1, 1976, that "the appeal is without our authorization," that "each of us informed the Attorney General of our request that this matter not be appealed," and that "we request that the Court dismiss the appeal." A stipulation filed in the District Court dated June 21, 1976, signed by the Attorney General and the attorney for appellee, confirms these statements in the letter, and states further that the Governor of the Commonwealth has also requested the Attorney General not to prosecute an appeal.
The Attorney General, on October 8, 1976, filed a brief in this Court supporting his authority under state law to docket the appeal.
It therefore appears that there are involved in the proceeding before this Court questions of Massachusetts law which may be determinative of such cause, with respect to which there seem to be no clearly controlling precedents in the decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Accordingly, this Court desires to certify to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, pursuant to Rule 3:21 of its Rules, the following question:
Question Certified
Under the circumstances herein presented, does Massachusetts law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney
...as defendants. In response to our certification of the question whether Massachusetts law permits this, see Massachusetts v. Feeney, 429 U.S. 66, 97 S.Ct. 345, 50 L.Ed.2d 224, the Supreme Judicial Court answered in the affirmative. Feeney v. Commonwealth, 373 Mass. 359, 366 N.E.2d 1262 6 Th......
-
Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v. Young
...has found, favored blacks. Veteran's preference is protected by Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-11; Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 429 U.S. 66, 97 S.Ct. 345, 50 L.Ed.2d 224 (1977). 79 The defendants' plan lacked both these features. First, no consideration was given to whether groups......
-
Lister v. Lucey, 77-1757
...Boucher, 450 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1971); Anthony v. Massachusetts, 415 F.Supp. 485 (D.Mass.1976), certified to state court on another issue, 429 U.S. 66. The damages involved here have been a hotly contested issue throughout the litigation 18 and the almost $7,000 requested reinforces the conc......
-
Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, In re
...to appeal, but whether the Management Committee had the authority to make this decision for them. See Massachusetts v. Feeney, 429 U.S. 66, 97 S.Ct. 345, 50 L.Ed.2d 224 (1976) (per curiam). Insofar as the first and third notices of appeal are concerned, we think that the question must be an......
-
The Equal Rights Amendment: then and now.
...(28) Id. at 900. Writing before the Supreme Court's decisions in Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976), and Massachusetts v. Feeney, 429 U.S. 66 (1976), the authors may not have anticipated that such a disparate impact analysis would be rejected under the Equal Protection (29) Brown et a......