Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatuteverdictmisdemeanorsustained
defendantverdictwillmisdemeanor

Related Cases

Methodist Medical Center of Illinois v. Taylor, 140 Ill.App.3d 713, 489 N.E.2d 351, 95 Ill.Dec. 130
View Case »
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594
View Case »
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987
View Case »
Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 67 S.Ct. 1249, 91 L.Ed. 1546, 1 Media L. Rep. 1310
View Case »
Keller v. Wolf, 239 Minn. 397, 58 N.W.2d 891
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Commonwealth v. Feeney, 221 Mass. 323, 108 N.E. 1068

Facts

Edward Feeney was charged with taking clams from flats in Boston where such activity was prohibited due to contamination concerns. The prohibition was enacted following a request from the State Board of Health, which identified areas affected by sewage and other harmful substances. The relevant statutes allowed the board to delineate contaminated areas and request the prohibition of shellfish harvesting to protect public health.

But when in the course of time the density of population had so increased that certain portions of such waters and flats became impregnated with sewage or deleterious substances from manufacturing establishments which affected and poisoned the imbedded shellfish, the Legislature apparently for the protection and preservation of the public health enacted St. 1901, c. 138, now R. L. c. 91, § 113, authorizing the state board of health upon complaint to delimit the contaminated area, and authorizing the board to request in writing the commissioners on fisheries and game to prohibit the taking therefrom of oysters, clams, quahogs and scallops.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the order prohibiting the taking of clams was valid, particularly regarding the duration of the prohibition as defined by the request from the State Board of Health.

The facts not being in controversy, the question of the defendant's guilt or innocence depends upon the validity and meaning of R. L. c. 91, §§ 113, 114.

Rule

The court applied the legal principles established in R. L. c. 91, §§ 113, 114, which authorize the State Board of Health to request the prohibition of shellfish harvesting in contaminated areas, and stipulate that violations of such prohibitions are misdemeanors punishable by fine.

By section 114, upon the issuance and publication of the order of prohibition its violation is made a misdemeanor punishable by fine.

Analysis

The court analyzed the validity of the prohibition order by examining the statutory requirements and the nature of the request from the State Board of Health. It concluded that the request did not need to specify an exact duration for the prohibition, as the statute allows for flexibility based on the conditions of contamination. The court emphasized that the board's authority to act in the interest of public health was paramount, and the defendant's rights were not violated as long as the prohibition was not arbitrary.

It being impossible except from observation and experience to determine when this condition will appear, the board is only required to name definitely the date from which the prohibition is to begin, although it may remain in force until the board are satisfied that its continuance is no longer necessary.

Conclusion

The court upheld the conviction of Edward Feeney, affirming that the prohibition order was valid and that the proceedings were in accordance with the statute. The verdict was sustained.

By the terms of the report the verdict is to stand, and it is So ordered.

Who won?

The Commonwealth prevailed in the case, as the court found that the statutory framework for prohibiting shellfish harvesting in contaminated areas was valid and properly enforced.

The court found that the statutory framework allowing for the prohibition of shellfish harvesting in contaminated areas was valid and properly applied.

You must be