Affiliations

• LaRouche v. Guzzi

  District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1976-08-05 · cited 5×

  In LaRouche v. Guzzi, independent and minor-party candidates for President, Senate, and Congress challenged Massachusetts' July 6, 1976, deadline for filing nomination papers with the required signatures, claiming it was unconstitutionally remote from the November election and burdened rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The three-judge court granted summary judgment to the defendant Secretary of the Commonwealth and dismissed the complaints. The court held the deadline valid, reasoning that the state's uniform timetable for all candidates (with twelve weeks for circulation), its administrative benefits, and the regular success of independents and new parties on the ballot made the scheme distinguishable from invalidated earlier deadlines in other states and not an unreasonable burden.

  electionscivil rights

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,678 words)

• Murgia v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Board of Retirement

  District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1972-07-21 · cited 2×

  The case involved a lieutenant colonel in the Massachusetts State Police challenging a state statute requiring mandatory retirement from the Uniformed Branch at age 50 or after 20 years of service, whichever is later. The plaintiff alleged that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by treating him differently from detectives, women in the state police, and officers with prior leaves or late enlistments who could serve longer. The court examined whether to convene a three-judge panel and grant a preliminary injunction against enforcement. It concluded that the constitutional claim was insubstantial and without merit, as the classification involved neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right and was therefore subject only to rational-basis review under established precedents. The court determined that the single-judge analysis sufficed to dismiss the request for further proceedings.

  civil rightslabor & employment

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,759 words)

• Goguen v. Smith

  District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1972-05-25 · cited 10×

  The case involved a petition for habeas corpus by a man convicted under Massachusetts law for publicly treating the United States flag with contempt by sewing a small flag to the seat of his pants. The federal district court granted the writ, ordering his release from a six-month sentence. The court reasoned that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as it could be applied to protected speech and lacked an authoritative narrowing construction by state courts, allowing for selective enforcement.

  criminal lawfree speechcivil rights

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (3,065 words)

• McDonald v. Penn Central Transportation Company

  District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1972-02-08 · cited 8×

  The case involved a railroad employee dismissed for an unauthorized four-and-a-half-hour absence who challenged a National Railroad Adjustment Board award that reinstated him but denied back pay and lost benefits. The plaintiff argued that the employer's disciplinary hearing violated the collective bargaining agreement's requirement for a fair and impartial hearing and that the Board failed to comply with statutory requirements under 45 U.S.C. § 153 by upholding the hearing's validity. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant railroad, concluding that judicial review under § 153(q) is narrowly limited to questions of jurisdiction, procedural compliance with the statute, or fraud, none of which applied, and that the Board's interpretation of the contract was conclusive on the parties.

  labor & employmentprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,048 words)

• International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Northeast Airlines, Inc.

  District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1972-02-03 · cited 4×

  The case involves the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers seeking a preliminary injunction to block Northeast Airlines from completing a merger with Delta Air Lines until the airline negotiated in good faith with the union over protections for employees' seniority, employment, and other rights, and to require that any bargaining results be incorporated into the final merger agreement. The claims were based on provisions in existing collective bargaining agreements and the Railway Labor Act. The court denied the injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on the merits because the cited agreement language and statute did not grant the union authority to halt the merger or dictate its terms. The court also found no showing of irreparable harm to employees that outweighed the risk that delaying the merger could jeopardize Northeast's survival given its severe financial distress.

  labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (3,870 words)