Case Title: Amy's Enterprises v. Sorrell

Citation: 174 Vt. 623, 817 A.2d 612

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-12-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
Amy's Enterprises v. Sorrell (2001-519); 174 Vt. 623; 817 A.2d 612

[Filed 18-Dec-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-519

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2002


  Amy's Enterprises d/b/a	        }	APPEALED FROM:
  Vermont Breakopen and Bingo Supplies	}
                                        }
       v.	                        }	Washington Superior Court
                                        }	
  William Sorrell, et al.	        }		
                                                Trial Judge: Mathew J. Katz

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶ 1.    Plaintiff appeals a decision of the Washington County
  Superior Court dismissing its claims against the State of Vermont and
  various defendants employed by the State.  Defendants were sued in their
  official capacity and individually.  They are: William Sorrell, Attorney
  General of the State of Vermont; Michael Hogan, Commissioner of the
  Department of Liquor Control (DLC); William Griffin, Chief Assistant
  Attorney General; Albert Elwell, Chief Inspector for the DLC;  Paula
  Niquette, Inspector for the DLC; and Paul Farnham, Inspector  for the DLC. 
  Relying principally on the well-established doctrines of sovereign and
  official immunity, we affirm.

       ¶ 2.  In January 2001, in the course of an investigation into
  illegal gaming tickets, liquor control inspectors Farnham and Niquette
  entered the Eagle Lodge in South Burlington.  The Eagle Lodge relinquished
  to the inspectors certain break-open tickets which had been purchased from
  Amy's Enterprises.  In the course of that exchange, plaintiff alleges that
  Inspector Farnham told the proprietor of the Eagle Lodge that the tickets
  distributed by plaintiff were "probably illegal."  This characterization is
  the fountainhead from which plaintiff's claims against the State, its
  officials, intermediate supervisors, and inspectors, flowed. 

       ¶ 3.  Under Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal should be affirmed where there
  exist no facts or circumstances that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. 
  See Powers v. Office of Child Support, ___ Vt. ___,