TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fransen v. Chief of Police

Mary A. Fransen, administratrix, & others v. Chief of Police of Dedham & others

Fransen v. Chief of Police, 212 N.E.2d 459 (Mass. 1965)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 3, 1965
Citations
212 N.E.2d 459349 Mass. 7751965 Mass. LEXIS 977

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

This bill seeks a declaration that under Dedham’s by-laws certain police officers (of one of whom Mrs. Fransen is administratrix) are entitled to additional pay for hours in *776 excess of forty hours (but less than forty-five hours) a week worked by them prior to March 1,1961, when the town adopted G. L. c. 147, § 17B (inserted by St. 1956, c. 349). A master found that the chief of police regularly scheduled the plaintiffs to work in the daytime an average of forty-five hours each week, and that they each received overtime pay for all time worked in excess of forty-five hours a week. The by-laws until March 30, 1959, provided “[n]o additional compensation . . . for hours worked between 40 and 45 hours.” Thereafter, until March 1, 1961, the applicable by-law provided “straight time” for those police officers assigned to a “40 hours [night] shift” for certain hours worked “between 40 and 45 hours.” No change was made with respect to police officers, like the plaintiffs, on the forty-five hour daytime shift. Although during the period between January 1, 1957, and March 1, 1961, the plaintiffs worked many hours in excess of forty (but not over forty-five) hours a week without receiving extra compensation, the applicable by-laws did not entitle them to compensation for these hours apart from their regular salaries. Driscoll v. Medford, 328 Mass. 360, 362-363 . The final decree dismissing the bill was apparently intended in effect as a declaration of right. Such a decree dismissing the bill, however, was not appropriate. The final decree is to be modified in accordance with this rescript, so that it will declare that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any additional compensation for any period prior to March 1, 1961, and as so modified it is affirmed.

Richard L. Wilder for the plaintiffs. Alfred L. PodolsM for the defendants.

The ease was submitted on briefs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Driscoll v. City of Medford, 103 N.E.2d 712 (Mass. 1952) 5

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