TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Boston Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board

Boston Retirement Board vs. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board

Boston Ret. Bd. v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 162 N.E.2d 824 (Mass. 1959)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1959
Judges
Wilkins, Spalding, Williams, Counihan, Cutter
Citations
162 N.E.2d 824340 Mass. 1121959 Mass. LEXIS 739

Opinion — Spalding

Spalding, J.

The applicant, Lillian J. Mullins, a member of the State-Boston retirement system, 1

was employed as a matron at the city of Boston’s stadium at East Boston. On August 26, 1955, she fell in a hole on the premises of the stadium while returning from lunch and sustained the injuries from which has arisen this application for retirement for accidental disability. A medical panel of three phy *113 sicians certified unanimously that her disability was likely to be permanent and that it was the “proximate result of the accident or hazard undergone on account of which the retirement is claimed.” The Boston retirement board denied the application on the ground that the injuries were not “the result of an accident sustained or hazard undergone during the performance of duty.” The applicant appealed to the contributory retirement appeal board, which reversed the decision of the Boston board. G. L. c. 32, § 16 (4). Upon a review under § 14 of G. L. c. 30A, the State administrative procedure act, the Superior Court affirmed the decision of the appeal board. The applicant was allowed to intervene (§14 £2]). The case comes to this court on the appeal of the Boston board (§ 15).

The only question presented for decision is whether the applicant was incapacitated “by reason of a personal injury sustained or a hazard undergone as a result of, and while in the performance of,” her duties. G. L. c. 32, § 7. The case of Boston Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, ante, 109, is on all fours with the present case and is controlling. For the reasons set forth in that case the decree is reversed and a new decree is to be entered reversing the decision of the appeal board.

So ordered.

1

St. 1947, c. 520, § 1.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1961: 21964: 11974: 11980: 11996: 12000: 12009: 119612026peak 1961 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Carlson417 A.2d 103 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1980)
  2. State Board of Retirement v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board172 N.E.2d 234 (Mass. 1961)
  3. Town of Natick v. Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare171 N.E.2d 273 (Mass. 1961)
  4. Namvar v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board663 N.E.2d 263 (Mass. 1996)
  5. Teachers' Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board195 N.E.2d 318 (Mass. 1964)
  6. Richard v. Retirement Board726 N.E.2d 405 (Mass. 2000)

Most recent

  1. Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board901 N.E.2d 131 (Mass. 2009)
  2. Richard v. Retirement Board726 N.E.2d 405 (Mass. 2000)
  3. Namvar v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board663 N.E.2d 263 (Mass. 1996)
  4. In re Carlson417 A.2d 103 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1980)
  5. Wormstead v. Town Manager308 N.E.2d 921 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)
  6. Teachers' Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board195 N.E.2d 318 (Mass. 1964)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list