Samel v. City of Pittsfield Licensing Bd.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1979 |
| Citation | 384 N.E.2d 1230,377 Mass. 908 |
| Parties | Arthur I. SAMEL et al. 1 v. CITY OF PITTSFIELD LICENSING BOARD et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Robert M. Fuster and Gary A. Case, Pittsfield, for plaintiffs.
Mitchell J. Sikora, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission.
Before HENNESSEY, C. J., and BRAUCHER, WILKINS, LIACOS and ABRAMS, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The plaintiffs in this action applied for a wine and malt beverages restaurant license for their establishment. The Berkshire Full Gospel Church, Inc., located within 500 feet of the premises, filed a timely written objection to the issuance of the license, pursuant to G.L. c. 138, § 16C. On June 10, 1974, the Pittsfield licensing board (board) voted to deny the application on the ground of the church's objection. The plaintiffs then appealed the board's decision to the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, pursuant to G.L. c. 138, § 67. On August 22, 1974, the commission, on the basis of the church's objection, sustained the board's decision.
The plaintiffs did not seek direct judicial review of the commission's decision, pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, § 14. Instead, they brought a complaint in the Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 231A, § 1 et seq., requesting that G.L. c. 138, § 16C, be declared unconstitutional and void. Their motion for summary judgment was granted, the judge declaring the provision unconstitutional as an improper delegation of authority to a private organization, and as violative of the due process clauses of both the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions. The defendants appealed to the Appeals Court. We transferred the matter here on our own motion.
The defendants now challenge the jurisdiction of the Superior Court to enter a declaratory judgment in the face of the plaintiffs' failure to seek judicial review of the commission's decision pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, § 14, although they did not raise this issue below. They also attack the declaratory judgment on its merits.
The judge's decision to entertain the request for declaratory relief was neither unauthorized nor inappropriate. While review pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, § 14, may have been available to the plaintiffs, their subsequent bill for declaratory relief is not precluded. See Boston Licensing Bd. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm'n, 367 Mass. 788, 792, 328 N.E.2d 848 (1975). The issue raised by this complaint involved the constitutionality of G.L. c. 138, § 16C, and does not depend on any fact-finding role of the defendants. Such issues appropriately may be raised by a complaint under G.L. c. 231A. St. Luke's Hosp. v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 320 Mass. 467, 470, 70 N.E.2d 10 (1946). G.L. c. 231A, § 2. See East Chop Tennis Club v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Goodwin
...Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, 377 Mass. 83, 90-93, 384 N.E.2d 1223, 1228-29 (1979). See also Samel v. City of Pittsfield Licensing Board, 377 Mass. 908, 384 N.E.2d 1230 (1979). We consequently are forced to the conclusion that section 16C's language at the very least distinguishes......
-
Babb v. Minder
... ... Page 750 ... Ivan L. Schraeder, Jefferson City, Mo., for defendants-appellants ... Joseph C. Honan, ... ...
-
Grady v. Comm'r of Corr.
...may file such a declaratory judgment action in addition to a request for relief under G.L. c. 127, § 38H. See Samel v. Pittsfield Lic. Bd., 377 Mass. 908, 384 N.E.2d 1230 (1979), quoting from Meenes v. Goldberg, 331 Mass. 688, 691, 122 N.E.2d 356 (1954) (“Commonly relief under this chapter ......
-
Liability Investigative Fund Effort, Inc. v. Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass'n of Massachusetts
...does not depend on preliminary factual determinations within the agency's area of expertise. See Samel v. Pittsfield Licensing Bd., supra, 377 Mass. at 908, 384 N.E.2d 1230; Gallagher v. Metropolitan Dist. Comm'n, 371 Mass. 691, 699, 359 N.E.2d 36 (1977). Cf. Samuels Pharmacy, Inc. v. Board......