Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Claimant Katherine St. Martin appealed the Employment Security Board's determination that she voluntarily left her job without good cause, disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits. She argued on appeal that her decision to quit her job was with good cause because she reasonably believed she would not receive a paycheck for her work. Claimant worked for almost two years for her employer as an assistant financial supervisor, which required her to prepare payroll information weekly. At some point, her employer began to have financial difficulties, and the payroll submission day was moved back to later in the week. The president of Claimant’s employer told claimant not to submit payroll because there were inadequate funds to cover the checks. The president then attempted to borrow money to meet the payroll, which ultimately proved "fruitless." The chief of operations persuaded the president to close the business and pay the employees. Claimant submitted the payroll after being given permission to do so by the president. She then printed the checks, and distributed them to the employees. After the president told claimant that the checks would bounce due to lack of funds, Claimant quit. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Claimant should not have been penalized for leaving her job when she was told not to expect a paycheck. The president's statement amounted to "good cause."

This case concerns public access to income-adjusted property tax records. Appellee Joseph O’Dea sought a copy of the Town of Manchester's state property tax adjustment report, which contains a list of the property tax adjustments of Town taxpayers based in most instances on their income. Appellee requested a copy of the "HS-122" (named for the bill under which the report is required) report for the Town of Manchester from the Town Treasurer. The Town denied Appellee's request, asserting that the HS-122 report is exempt from disclosure under various provisions of 1 V.S.A. 317(c). The Town does provide the total property tax bill of each taxpayer but redacts the information showing the amount paid by the state and the amount paid by the taxpayer. Appellee appealed to Bennington Superior Court which held a hearing on the merits. The court issued an opinion declaring the report to be public information and ordering the Town to produce the report. The Town appealed the superior court's decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the report consists of "return information" that is confidential and not subject to disclosure. Therefore, the Court reversed the superior court's decision.

The issue on this appeal centers on who should bear responsibility for the cost of cleaning up petroleum contamination caused by releases from a gas station's underground storage tanks. The controversy in this appeal was between the State of Vermont, which runs the Vermont Petroleum Cleanup Fund (VPCF) and Stonington Insurance Co. (Stonington), which insured Bradford Oil, the owner of the underground storage tanks, for approximately a three-and-a-half-year period. The State appealed the trial court's judgment limiting Stonington's liability to a 4/27 share of past and future cleanup costs and awarded the State $45,172.05. On appeal, the State argued: (1) the Supreme Court's application of time-on-the-risk allocation in "Towns v. Northern Security Insurance Co." did not preclude joint and several liability under all standard occurrence-based policy language; (2) the circumstances here, including the reasonable expectations of the insured and the equity and policy considerations, support imposing joint and several liability on Stonington for all of the State's VPCF expenditures; and (3) even if time-on-the-risk allocation would otherwise be appropriate, Stonington was not entitled to such allocation because it failed to show sufficient facts to apply this allocation method in this case. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that "Towns" was the controlling case law here, and the Court was unconvinced by the State's reasonable expectations, equity, and policy arguments to distinguish the "Towns" decision. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision.

This appeal stemmed from a written agreement between the City of Rutland and the Vermont Swim Association (VSA) that granted VSA the right to host its annual swim meet at a facility in a city park. VSA appealed the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the City. Because the plain language of the parties' contract did not require VSA to pay attorney's fees incurred by the City in pursuing either indemnity from VSA or other third-party actions, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

At issue in this appeal was whether a 180-foot telecommunications tower in the town of Hardwick would have an undue adverse effect on the aesthetics of the area in violation of Criterion 8 of Act 250.  Neighboring landowners appealed the issuance of an Act 250 land-use permit for the project.  Specifically, they contested (1) whether the project violated a clear, written community standard intended to preserve the aesthetics of the area, and (2) whether a reduction of the tower's height was a mitigating step that the developer should have taken to improve the harmony of the project with its surroundings.  Upon review of the briefs submitted by all interested parties and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Environmental Division of the Superior Court that determined that the tower would not have an undue adverse effect under Criterion 8.

Plaintiffs Lisa and Thomas Ketchum as trustees for the Saddlebrook Farm and North Farm Trusts appealed the Town of Dorset's decision to reclassify a town road from a class 3 to a class 4 highway.  Plaintiffs argued that the court erred in reviewing the selectboard's reclassification using a deferential standard instead of a de novo procedure involving appointment of a panel of commissioners.  In the alternative, Plaintiffs contended that, even under a deferential standard, the court's decision was erroneous because the findings were not supported by the evidence and they were denied an opportunity to supplement the record on appeal.  Plaintiffs own property that is serviced by a town highway known as Upper Kirby Hollow Road.  There is one residence on the road, and the remaining properties are undeveloped.  Some of the property is under a conservation easement and open to the public for recreational activities.  In October 2008, the Town provided notice that it intended to consider altering the classification of certain town highways, including a 0.55 mile section of Kirby Hollow Road.  The selectboard made a site visit to the property.  The Town also held a public meeting and heard from interested parties.  Plaintiffs attended and spoke against reclassification.  Other members of the public also opposed reclassification and questioned whether it would have an impact on the public's ability to use the conserved property.  The Town road foreman supported reclassification and testified that the road is dangerous to maintain and snow plow because it is narrow and steep.  In December 2008, the Town issued a written decision, finding, among other things, that: the road's width is too narrow to allow two vehicles to safely pass one another or for access for emergency vehicles; Town snow removal vehicles have slid off the road causing danger to the vehicles and impairing snow removal of other roads; and the cost to improve the road is prohibitive.  The Town also found that the road services only one seasonal residence with limited winter usage.  The Town concluded that continuing summer maintenance and winter plowing did not serve the public good of the Town and reclassified the road. The trial court concluded that there was no statutory authority providing for review of the reclassification and therefore the only jurisdiction for the appeal was pursuant to Rule 75 in the nature of certiorari.  Upon review, the Supreme Court found that while Plaintiffs argued that their opinions and evidence should have been weighed more heavily, the selectboard did not err in resolving the competing considerations in the manner that it did.  The decision was within the Town's authority and not erroneous. The Court affirmed the lower court's decisions.

Mountain View Community School, Inc. appealed a trial court order that rejected its request for a property tax exemption for "lands owned or leased by colleges, academies or other public schools" under state law. Mountain View contended the court misinterpreted the law in denying the requested exemption. For a number of years, Mountain View operated a private nonsectarian school for students from preschool through eighth grade at two separate locations in the City of Rutland. Mountain View's only use of the properties was as a school. While maintaining that it was statutorily exempt from the payment of property taxes, Mountain View nevertheless paid them under protest from 1994 through 2007. When the school's assessed value increased dramatically in 2006 and 2007, however, it sought an exemption. The City declined to grant the exemption, and in response, Mountain View filed suit for declaratory relief and an injunction to prevent a threatened tax sale. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the lower the court mistakenly conflated the "public use" and "public school" exemptions in the statute, seeking to determine whether the school served "an indefinite class" under the former when, in fact, Mountain View was relying on the latter. The Court reversed the decision of the lower court.

In 2008, Plaintiff Timothy Price filed a pro se complaint in the Superior Court seeking access to the ballots and tally sheets from the November, 2006 election from the town clerk âbefore they are in any way tampered with or destroyed.â The Town of Fairlee moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the time to contest an election or ask for a recount had long since passed. The trial court reviewed Plaintiffâs complaint and concluded that Plaintiff was really requesting public records under the stateâs Public Records Act (PRA). The trial court noted that state law required the town clerk to retain all election materials for a 90-day period following an election, and authorized the clerk to destroy those materials after the 90 days passed. The court reasoned that destruction of the election materials had rendered the case moot since it could not grant the relief Plaintiff requested. Plaintiff then submitted a request to the Town for the election records pursuant to the PRA. This time the Town denied the request, saying the records were not subject to the PRA because the records had been destroyed. Taking the matter to court again, the Town moved to dismiss Plaintiffâs request as moot. This time, however, the trial court denied the Townâs motion to dismiss, holding that the records fell into an exception to the mootness doctrine, for actions âcapable of repetition, yet evading review.â The Town then moved for summary judgment, arguing that the election materials had to be âsecurely sealedâ if they hadnât already been destroyed, and were not available for public disclosure. The court granted the Townâs motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court was correct to entertain Plaintiffâs petition, but erred in ruling that the election records requested were exempt from disclosure under the PRA and erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Town. Accordingly, the Court reversed the lower courtâs decision.