District Court, D. Vermont — appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson
Shivelhood v. Davis
District Court, D. Vermont · 1971-12-30 · cited 14×
This case involved five Middlebury College students suing local and state officials in Vermont, claiming that the Middlebury Board of Civil Authority had wrongly denied their voter registration applications by misapplying domicile rules under state law. The court certified the suit as a class action on behalf of students physically residing in Middlebury who wished to register and vote there, and it issued a preliminary injunction allowing four named plaintiffs to vote in a January 1972 special election while ordering the Board to reconsider all denied applications before the March town meeting using correct legal standards. The core reasoning was that Vermont statute requires only an intent to remain in the town indefinitely rather than permanently, that an oath of residence provides prima facie evidence of domicile, and that students' plans to graduate or attend graduate school elsewhere do not automatically disqualify them if they lack definite plans to leave.
electionscivil rights
McNamara v. Malloy
District Court, D. Vermont · 1971-11-09 · cited 10×
In McNamara v. Malloy, two indigent plaintiffs challenged the suspension of their driver's licenses by Vermont's Commissioner of Motor Vehicles after separate automobile accidents, as they lacked liability insurance and could not afford to post proof of financial responsibility under state law. The suspensions occurred without any presuspension hearing on the issue of fault or reasonable possibility of liability. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming violations of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court first confirmed jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), classifying the interest in retaining a driver's license as a personal liberty right. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Bell v. Burson, the court concluded that the Vermont financial responsibility statutes were unconstitutional on their face because they tied license suspension to potential liability without providing an opportunity for a hearing on whether there was a reasonable possibility of a judgment against the driver.
civil rightsprocedure
Teitscheid v. Leopold
District Court, D. Vermont · 1971-10-22 · cited 4×
This case involved a challenge to a Vermont statute (3 V.S.A. § 262) that generally prohibited the state from employing aliens. Plaintiffs, alien residents terminated from state jobs solely due to their citizenship status, sought injunctive and declaratory relief claiming violations of the Equal Protection Clause and Supremacy Clause. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding the statute unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and Supremacy Clause, and ordered their reinstatement. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Richardson, the court reasoned that classifications based on alienage are inherently suspect and subject to strict scrutiny, and that the statute improperly interfered with federal authority over immigration while denying aliens equal access to employment opportunities.
immigrationcivil rightsfederal powerlabor & employment
Linnane v. Betit
District Court, D. Vermont · 1971-09-13 · cited 5×
In Linnane v. Betit, the plaintiff sued Vermont officials after her application for Aid to Needy Families with Children benefits was delayed 60 days under state regulations in cases of spousal estrangement, resulting in lower General Assistance payments during that period. The court first confirmed jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the dispute concerned the total welfare benefits owed to a recipient at a subsistence level, which implicates personal rights. On the merits, the court held that the state 60-day waiting period conflicted with section 406(a) of the Social Security Act and related HEW regulations, which define a dependent child as one deprived of parental support by continued absence without imposing any minimum waiting time and explicitly allow for recent absences. The case was resolved solely on the statutory preemption claim after remand from a three-judge panel.
civil rightsfederal power
United States v. County National Bank of Bennington
District Court, D. Vermont · 1971-07-28 · cited 1×
This case involved the U.S. government's challenge under the Clayton Act and the Bank Merger Act of 1966 to a proposed merger between Catamount National Bank and County National Bank, two of the four commercial banks operating in the Bennington, Vermont area. The defendants and intervenor Comptroller of the Currency moved for summary judgment, conceding the relevant market but arguing that the area was too small to qualify as a "section of the country" under Section 7 of the Clayton Act as a matter of law. The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate, noting that antitrust cases require caution in granting such motions and that whether a given geographic area constitutes a "section of the country" is a factual question to be resolved based on economic realities rather than a legal determination. The court therefore denied the motion and indicated that the case would proceed to trial on the antitrust merits.
business & regulatory
Marra v. Bushee
District Court, D. Vermont · 1970-09-14 · cited 8×
This case was a jury trial for alienation of affections and criminal conversation in which the plaintiff received a $9,000 verdict. The defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial, contending that New York law applied under either the lex loci delicti or significant relationship tests and barred the claims because New York had abolished these causes of action. The court denied both motions, ruling that Vermont law governed under either conflicts test because the conduct occurred in Vermont, and that the jury instructions on the elements of controlling cause and criminal conversation correctly followed Vermont precedents.
family lawtorts & liabilityprocedure