Title: Jacobs v. State Teachers' Retirement System

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Jacobs v. State Teachers' Retirement System of Vermont (2001-474); 
174 Vt. 404; 816 A.2d 517

[Filed 06-Sep-2002]
[Motions for Reargument & Amendment Denied 27-Nov-2002]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                No. 2001-474


  Susan Jacobs	                                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Washington Superior Court


  State Teachers' Retirement System	         June Term, 2002
  of Vermont


  Matthew I. Katz, J.

  Charles F. Storrow of Kimbell & Storrow, Montpelier, for
   Plaintiff-Appellant.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Bridget C. Asay, Assistant
   Attorney General, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellee.


  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.


       DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff Susan Jacobs sued defendant State Teachers'
  Retirement System of Vermont ("the System") for denying her certain
  retirement benefits.  The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment,
  and the trial court found for defendant based on sovereign immunity.  On
  appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in two respects: by
  finding that the System was protected by sovereign immunity, and by
  concluding that the State did not waive its immunity.  We affirm.
   
       "In reviewing a decision to grant summary judgment, we regard all
  allegations made in opposition to the motion as true if supported by
  affidavits or other evidentiary material."  LaShay v. Dep't of Soc. &
  Rehab. Servs., 160 Vt. 60, 62,