Title: Town of Andover v. State

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Town of Andover v. State (98-428); 170 Vt. 552; 742 A.2d 756

[Filed 14-Oct-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-428

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1999

Town of Andover, et al.	               }	APPEALED FROM:
	                               }
	                               }
     v.	                               }	Washington Superior Court
	                               }	
State of Vermont, et al.	       }
	                               }	DOCKET NO. 648-11-97Wncv	

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff municipalities sued the State of Vermont seeking a
  declaration that the Equal  Educational Opportunity Act of 1997 (Act 60),
  16 V.S.A. §§ 4001-4029, is unconstitutional  because it requires
  municipalities to (a) set tax rates for other municipalities; (b) initiate
  revenue  bills to fulfill the general obligations of the State; and (c)
  undertake the State's constitutional  responsibility for providing equal
  educational opportunities.  The State moved to dismiss on the  ground that
  plaintiffs lacked capacity to challenge the validity of a legislative
  enactment.  The  trial court ruled that municipalities lack capacity to sue
  the State and dismissed the case as to the  municipalities, but allowed
  thirty days to substitute other plaintiffs.  The trial court granted a 
  motion under V.R.C.P. 54(b) to permit the filing of an appeal by the
  dismissed plaintiffs, which  is now before us.  We reverse and remand.

       Plaintiffs make two contentions on appeal.  The first is that the
  Declaratory Judgments Act, 12  V.S.A. §§ 4711-4725, provides an independent
  ground of jurisdiction for their lawsuit against  the State.  We agree with
  the trial court and the State that the Declaratory Judgments Act  provided
  a procedural vehicle and remedy that was not previously available to
  litigants in  general, but the Act did not extend the jurisdiction of the
  courts over subject matter or parties.   See Gifford Memorial Hosp. v.
  Randolph, 119 Vt. 66, 70,