# Doherty v. Retirement Board of Medford

> Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · June 5, 1997 · 425 Mass. 130

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6451242

## Case

- **Full name:** Thomas K. Doherty v. Retirement Board of Medford
- **Court:** Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- **Decided:** June 5, 1997
- **Citations:** 425 Mass. 130; 680 N.E.2d 45; 1997 Mass. LEXIS 123
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lynch
- **Judges:** Fried, Lynch
- **Cited by:** 47 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6451242

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that use of term “forfeit” in § 15 [1] did not render statute “so punitive as to overcome its restitutionary purpose”
- holding that, despite term “forfeiture” in § 15 [1], it was “not so punitive”
- applying the substantial evidence standard of review to a retirement board decision appealed pursuant to G. L. c. 32, § 16[3][a], and G. L. c. 249, § 4

## Opinion text

Lynch, J.
(concurring). I write separately because of the court’s reliance on Embers of Salisbury, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm’n, 401 Mass. 526 (1988), in which I dissented. If credibility is to be resolved on the basis of a dry transcript, a doubtful proposition at best, then appellate judges are in as good a position to make that determination as is the tribunal from which the matter is being appealed. Because the court has rejected the views I expressed in Embers of Salisbury, Inc., I see no reason to contest further except to note the remarkable efficiency of the board here — that was able to review the transcript of the significant portions of the criminal trial and, in a matter of hours, reach a conclusion at odds with the fact finders who made their decision on the bases of live testimony and cross-examination, and after a complete trial presided over by an impartial judge.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6451242. Public record. Not legal advice.