Opinion ID: 2192314
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiffs' VAPA-based Claim

Text: Plaintiffs' VAPA-based claim fails for the same reason that plaintiffs' due process claim fails, namely, because plaintiffs had no cognizable interest at stake in the proceedings at which the alleged violation occurred. Plaintiffs assert that VAPA was violated because no contested case hearing was held, arguing that 3 V.S.A. § 801(b)(2) requires a contested case proceeding for any licensing proceeding. In fact, § 801(b)(2) merely defines a contested case as a proceeding, including but not restricted to rate-making and licensing, in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing. The definitions provided in this section help clarify the statutory sections that follow but impose no legal obligation in and of themselves. Plaintiffs presumably meant to refer to the requirement imposed by 3 V.S.A. § 814(a), which states that [w]hen the grant, denial, or renewal of a license is required to be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing, the provisions of this chapter concerning contested cases shall apply. The definition of a contested case cited by plaintiffs makes clear, however, that the function of contested cases is to adjudicate the rights of a party to agency action. A party for purposes of the VAPA is defined as each person or agency named or admitted as a party, or properly seeking and entitled as of right to be admitted as a party. 3 V.S.A. § 801(b)(5). Black's Law Dictionary defines a party as [a] person concerned or having or taking part in any affair, matter, transaction, or proceeding. Black's Law Dictionary 775 (6th ed. abr.1991). Because plaintiffs were not parties to the decision to grant or deny the encroachment permit, they cannot register a demand for a contested case hearing. Plaintiffs have not alleged a special and substantial injury, nor have they alleged facts sufficient to suggest any conceivable theory of relief under the United States Constitution or the Vermont Administrative Procedure Act. Their claims were properly dismissed. Affirmed.