In Re Town Highway No. 20
45 A.3d 54
Vt.2012Background
- Rhodes petitioned the Georgia selectboard to clarify TH #20 and the Unnamed Road, seeking access to his land and other related relief.
- TH #20 runs along Rhodes's property; Unnamed Road runs along the southwestern border and intersects TH #20.
- In 1994 the culvert under the Unnamed Road was removed, hindering Rhodes's access and the town's use of the land.
- The 1971 discontinuation of TH #20 was challenged; Rhodes sought to reclassify and improve the road for year-round vehicular access.
- The trial court found discriminatory, biased conduct by the Town against Rhodes in favoring neighbors, violating Article 7; it awarded damages and ordered access improvements.
- On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed liability, reversed the damages amount currently awarded, and remanded for recalculation of damages; it held Article 7 self-executing and a constitutional-tort damages remedy is available under stringent criteria.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Article 7 self-executing and privately actionable? | Rhodes asserted Article 7 creates a private damages remedy. | Town contends no private remedy or limited remedies exist under Article 7. | Yes; Article 7 is self-executing and permits a private damages action. |
| Are damages available for a violation of Article 7 in this context? | Damages are appropriate to vindicate long-running discriminatory conduct. | Damages should be limited or precluded where adequate remedies exist or where taking action is inappropriate. | Damages are available but must meet stringent elements and are to be remanded for recalculation. |
| Did the trial court err in applying res judicata or in consolidating state and federal claims? | NdA | Res judicata precludes duplicative relief; federal rulings limit state claims. | No reversible error; preclusion did not bar the state-law Article 7 claims on remand. |
| Was the 2004 Unnamed Road I decision properly reviewable and timely on appeal? | NdA | Appeal timing and Rule 58/79 procedures govern timely review. | Appeal timing issues addressed; reconsideration was untimely; remand on damages remains proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shields v. Gerhart, 163 Vt. 219 (1995) (established state constitutional tort framework and cautioned about remedies)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognizes private damages remedy under the federal constitution in principal cases)
- Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one equal protection; intentional differential treatment actionable)
- Whitcomb v. Town of Springfield, 123 Vt. 395 (1963) (downgrading a road to a trail does not constitute a taking)
- Ketchum v. Town of Dorset, 2011 VT 49 (2011) (reaffirms takings principle regarding downgrading roads)
- Perrin v. Town of Berlin, 138 Vt. 306 (1980) (downgrading a town highway to a trail does not involve a taking)
- Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194 (1999) (framework for Article 7 self-execution and government-action limitations)