Court Opinion

ID: 9519209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:11:22.678216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:06.441599
License: Public Domain

Kaplan and Liacos, JJ.,
adhere to the views previously expressed in the dissent of Kaplan, J. (with Chief Justice Tauro agreeing), in Revere v. Aucella, 369 Mass. 138, 148 (1975), appeal dismissed sub nom. Charger Invs., Inc. v. Corbett, 429 U.S. 877 (1976): (1) the ordinance is beyond the authority of the city council because it intrudes on the jurisdiction vested by the Legislature in the administrators of the alcoholic beverages control law (G. L. c. 138); (2) the ordinance is unconstitutional on its face as offensive to our Declaration of Rights. Being unable to persuade a majority of the court of either proposition, they concur in the present judgment on the narrow ground that the ordinance is unconstitutional in its application.
Abrams, J.,
agrees with the first basis of the Aucella dissent, reserves opinion on the second, and concurs in the judgment on the ground that the ordinance is unconstitutional in its application.