Title: Doria v. University of Vermont

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 88-237


Anthony Doria                                Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      Chittenden Superior Court

The University of Vermont and                November Term, 1989
State Agricultural College


John P. Meaker, J.

David Putter of Saxer, Anderson, Wolinsky & Sunshine, Montpelier, for
  plaintiff-appellant

Michael F. Hanley and susan Boyle Ford of Plante, Hanley & Gerety, P.C.,
  White River Junction, for defendant-appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson and Dooley, JJ.


     DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff, Anthony Doria, appeals from the decision of the
Chittenden Superior Court granting the motion of defendant University of
Vermont to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to V.R.C.P.
12(b)(6).  We dismiss the appeal as moot.
     In October 1985, a professor at the University of Vermont organized
students to conduct a telephone political poll as part of a classroom pro-
ject.  The poll was commissioned by two newspapers, for whom the professor
was serving as an unpaid consultant.  The students interviewed 503 randomly
selected individuals, asking each interviewee thirty-two separate questions
on a variety of political issues.  The content of the questions was appar-
ently determined by the newspapers.
     One of the poll questions gave rise to this litigation.  It stated:
"Now, I would like to ask you a few questions about the upcoming 1986 state
elections.  If the US senate election was held today would you be inclined
to vote for Patrick Leahy or Richard Snelling?"  At the time of the poll,
Patrick Leahy was the United States Senator and a candidate for reelection
as a democrat.  Richard Snelling was the former Governor of Vermont and an
announced candidate for United States Senate as a republican.  Plaintiff was
also an announced candidate for the United States Senate as a republican.
Plaintiff's name was omitted from the polling question because the news-
papers did not consider him a viable candidate.  Thus, the students never
informed the interviewees that there were any other candidates in the
Senate race besides Leahy and Snelling; nor was plaintiff's name mentioned.
     Plaintiff brought suit, alleging, in essence, that defendant university
was responsible for the poll and that its actions violated his Vermont
constitutional rights as a candidate because the poll "improperly influenced
the primary and general elections."  Plaintiff did not name the professor,
the students or the newspapers.  Plaintiff originally filed his complaint in
Chittenden Superior Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and
nominal damages.  Defendant removed the case to federal court, at which time
plaintiff, with the court's permission, amended his complaint in order to
raise additional federal causes of action under the Civil Rights Act, 42
U.S.C. { 1983 (1988).  The federal court dismissed the federal claims
because it found no state action and remanded the cause back to the superior
court to adjudicate the State constitutional claims.  The trial court
determined that no private right of action is available under any of the
three provisions of the Vermont Constitution relied upon by plaintiff, and
therefore dismissed the action.
     Plaintiff raises three issues on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in
predicating dismissal of the complaint on the theory that there is no
private right of action under Chapter I, Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Vermont
Constitution; (2) the trial court erred by failing to declare the respective
rights and relations of the parties under the same constitutional pro-
visions; and (3) the trial court failed to give plaintiff notice and an
opportunity to address the issues before dismissing the case.  We need not
address these issues, however, because we find that the complaint fails to
state a cause of action and is moot.
     Plaintiff's complaint requested several different remedies for his
alleged harm, including:  (1) a declaratory judgment that defendant violated
his State constitutional rights; (2) an injunction prohibiting defendant
from using its name or publicly funded facilities to republish the language
of the controversial question in subsequent polls; and (3) nominal damages
for the harm caused by defendant's past actions and an award of costs.
     The purpose of a declaratory judgment is to "provide a declaration of
rights, status, and other legal relations of parties to an actual or
justiciable controversy."  Robtoy v. City of St. Albans, 132 Vt. 503, 504,