Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The question before the Supreme Court was whether, and to what extent, a state's attorney was entitled to official immunity from civil liability for allegedly tortuous conduct concerning a local police officer. The trial court concluded that liability for the acts complained of was precluded by either qualified or absolute immunity, or was otherwise barred. In February 2010 when Plaintiff was employed as a police officer with the South Burlington Police Department, filed a complaint against Defendant, the Chittenden County State's Attorney, stating claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional interference with Plaintiff's employment. The complaint alleged that Defendant (formerly a private lawyer and a member of what Plaintiff characterized as the Vermont "Drug Bar") harbored an animus against Plaintiff due to his police work. Plaintiff claimed that as state's attorney Defendant had "maliciously pursued a course of action . . . to undermine Plaintiff's work and credibility in the law enforcement community." As alleged in the complaint and in Plaintiff's later responses to discovery, Defendant's tortious misconduct included meeting with Plaintiff's supervisors to criticize his job performance and falsely accuse him of dishonesty; declining to file charges or seek search warrants based on Plaintiff's affidavits; threatening not to work with Plaintiff and thereby end his career if Plaintiff attempted to bypass the State's Attorney's office and obtain warrants directly from the trial court; criticizing Plaintiff's work when he was being considered by the State Police to serve on its Drug Task Force; impugning Plaintiff's honesty to other prosecutors; encouraging the filing of a civil-rights lawsuit against Plaintiff and testifying falsely in that action; and "leaking" harmful information about Plaintiff to criminal defense attorneys. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded "[t]he trial court's ruling was sound" and affirmed the trial court's ruling that the State's Attorney was entitled to absolute immunity. View "O'Connor v. Donovan" on Justia Law

At issue in this case were documents that related to the investigation and discipline of City of Rutland employees for viewing pornography, including possible child pornography, at work. The City challenged a superior court order that required it to disclose certain documents to Plaintiff Rutland Herald. AFSCME Council 93, Local 1201, the bargaining agent for non-managerial employees of the Police Department and the Department of Public Works (DPW), also appealed. The City argued that the documents at issue were exempt under section 317(c)(5) of the Vermont Access to Public Records Act (PRA) as records "compiled in the course of a criminal or disciplinary investigation by any police or professional licensing agency," and under section 317(c)(7) as "personal documents relating to an individual." Unable to procure these documents by request, the Herald filed suit and moved for summary judgment in its favor. AFSCME moved to intervene and to dismiss the case. AFSCME asserted that disclosure of employee disciplinary records would violate the employees' rights to privacy and confidentiality and were therefore not subject to disclosure under 317(c)(7). The court concluded that the balance of the public interest against employee privacy tipped in favor of disclosure: it found the records highly relevant to the public's interest in determining if the police department followed its own internal affairs investigation procedure, and if the police department properly decided whether to conduct criminal investigations of its own employees. "The court found the significance of this public interest to be of the highest degree." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded AFSCME failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the balance of interests favored disclosure of the documents. The Court reversed the trial court's decision to allow the Herald to review in camera numerous nonpublic records that depict possible child pornography, notwithstanding the conclusion that public release of these images was not proper; the trial court identified no legal basis for this ruling, and the Supreme Court found no support for this approach in the PRA. View "Rutland Herald v. City of Rutland" on Justia Law

In 1995, Petitioner John Rhodes, a resident of the Town of Georgia, petitioned his local governing body, the selectboard, to clarify several issues surrounding two roads that bordered his land.  While this case began as a suit over the existence and use of two ancient roads, "it grew over time into a test of constitutional guarantees and a saga about abuse of power."  After almost fifteen years of litigation, including two side trips to federal court, the trial court entered judgment against the Town of Georgia.  The court found that Petitioner's request to access his land over town roads had been repeatedly and maliciously frustrated by the Town selectboard in an ongoing attempt to protect the value of a neighbor's property, a violation of Chapter I, Article 7 of the Vermont Constitution, the Common Benefits Clause.  The court concluded that Article 7 was self-executing and awarded monetary damages for the constitutional violation.  In this consolidated appeal, the Town of Georgia sought to overturn the trial court decision.  Upon careful review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of liability against the Town: the Court "underscore[d] the unique circumstances" of this case, finding that the "trial court's unchallenged findings describe a deliberate, decades-long course of discriminatory conduct by the Town so malicious and self-serving as to deny Rhodes his fundamental rights to due process and equal treatment under the Vermont Constitution.  Absent such egregious misconduct, and clear proof of the exacting elements necessary for relief, towns and local officials have no cause for concern about the myriad decisions made in the normal exercise of authority.  Failing to recognize a remedy in a case such as this, however, would undermine the constitutional principles that all Vermonters hold dear.  Vermont has consistently sustained its essence as one big small town by affirming and reinforcing the fundamental values that define it.  This decision affirms those values." View "In re Town Highway No. 20 Town of Georgia" on Justia Law

Medicaid recipient John Doe and the State appealed a trial court's decision allowing the State to partially recover the amount of its lien against Doe's settlement with a third party. In 1992 when Doe was nine years old, he was catastrophically injured and paralyzed in an automobile accident.  Due to Doe's injuries, his mother applied for Medicaid on his behalf in 1994.  Doe later brought suit in New York Supreme Court against the alleged third-party tortfeasors.  He also sued New York State Transit Authority (NYSTA) in the New York Court of Claims.  The State of Vermont notified Doe in January 2001 that it claimed a lien against any award, judgment, or settlement stemming from the accident.  In 2001, Doe settled the lawsuit against the third parties for $8.75 million. Doe's suit against NYSTA went to trial, and in 2004, the Court of Claims awarded Doe approximately $42 million and allocated approximately $2.9 million to Doe's past medical expenses from the date of injury to the date of trial. Between the 2001 and 2006 settlements, the State paid approximately $771,111 in medical expenses for Doe's care, in addition to the medical expenses paid up to the date of the first settlement.  The State claimed a lien on the 2006 settlement for $506,810, which was the difference between the amount the State paid for Doe's medical care under Medicaid and the State's share of litigation expenses. Doe sued the State of Vermont, seeking a declaratory judgment that he satisfied the State's lien by partial payment.  On summary judgment, the court concluded that it would not undo the 2001 settlement because it was an accord and satisfaction of all claims paid for medical expenses incurred to that point in time. The State argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court should have reduced the Court of Claims' findings of future economic damages to present value before making its lien allocation. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the parties' agreement resolved the issues surrounding the State's lien on Doe's first settlement, while leaving open the possibility that Doe would obtain a judgment against or settlement with the NYSTA.. On these facts, the Court agreed with the trial court that there was an accord and satisfaction, and that the State accepted $594,209.03. The case was reversed and remanded to recalculate the State's lien against $771,111 in medical expenses and reasonable attorney's fees, but affirmed in all other respects.  View "Doe v. Vermont Office of Health Access" on Justia Law

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen Bain was incarcerated as a habitual offender following convictions in 2005 for possession of stolen property and possession of marijuana.  He believed that police unlawfully entered his home following his May 2003 arrest, and he pursued this claim in numerous suits. Beginning in 2006, Plaintiff filed a series of lawsuits against Windham County Sheriff Keith Clark and others in federal court, focusing on allegations of police misconduct.  All of those complaints were dismissed.  In November 2008, Plaintiff filed this complaint against Defendants Clark and Windham County State Attorney Tracy Shriver, reiterating his allegation that police had unlawfully entered his home without a warrant five and a half years earlier.  Plaintiff maintained that Defendants were unlawfully withholding exculpatory evidence in violation of his rights.  He sought the production of "any and all computer, telephone or otherwise generated radio dispatch unit log[s] of [his] arrest and the bona fide activities of law enforcement for the days of May 22 and 23, 2003" under the Vermont Access to Public Records Act (PRA).  Plaintiff stated that he had requested these documents from Clark in December 2007, but received no response.  He did not allege that he requested the documents from Shriver.  Both Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint.  Shriver pointed out that Plaintiff failed to make a public records request from her office, and that he thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.  In this appeal, the Supreme Court was called on to consider whether "radio dispatch and unit logs" generated by police were exempt from disclosure under the PRA.  The trial court found the records exempt from disclosure, and dismissed Plaintiff's claim against Shriver for lack of jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision as to Shriver, and reversed and remanded as to Clark: "because the evidence in this case has not yet been fully developed, [the Court could not] discern if police radio and dispatch unit logs are the type of records that the Legislature intended to shield from view." View "Bain v. Clark " on Justia Law

This condemnation case was filed in July 1992, "making it very, very old."  On its fourth time reviewing this matter, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the superior court abused its discretion when it declined to find that there had been a material increase in the value of a sand pit owned by Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Company (HS&G) between 2000 and 2009.  Upon review, the Court concluded that the superior court did not abuse its discretion, and affirmed the court’s denial of HS&G’s motion to amend the final judgment. View "In re Chittenden Solid Waste District" on Justia Law

Taxpayer Margaret Murray appealed a superior court's order that dismissed her tax abatement appeal. On appeal to the Supreme Court, she argued that the superior court erroneously concluded that she could not appeal the abatement decision because she failed to challenge the valuation of the property in the appraisal process.  Upon review, the Court concluded that Taxpayer's abatement appeal to the superior court was not foreclosed by her failure to appeal the valuation of her property, and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Murray v. City of Burlington" on Justia Law

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." View "St. Martin v. Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

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. View "In re HS-122" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Joshua Handverger, the former city manager of Winooski, appealed a trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Winooski city attorney. Plaintiff sued the city attorney, individually, for breach of fiduciary duty in the course of municipal infighting over Plaintiff's performance as manager and the city's decision to dismiss him. Plaintiff argued that contrary to the fealty owed him by the city attorney, the attorney embarrassed and humiliated him by threatening cross-examination at a municipal hearing concerning his suspension of the city's police chief, and by signing a disparaging letter and press release calling for his resignation. Plaintiff claimed compensation for personal anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, and nightmares resulting from the city attorney's actions. The trial court determined that the city attorney owed plaintiff no fiduciary duty beyond the attorney's duty to the city. The Supreme Court held that trial court was correct in construing the city charter as obligating the city attorney to represent the city's interests only. The "essential" question on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether the city attorney was obligated "to act for or give advice for the benefit" of Plaintiff personally either as an ally, or a neutral, in the Plaintiff's employment dispute with the city. "Absent any language to that effect in the charter, or some evidence that the attorney otherwise entered upon such a role on behalf of Plaintiff, the answer remains no." View "Handverger v. City of Winooski and O'Brien" on Justia Law