{"id":"DUT-VT-019","kind":"duty","level":"court","jurisdiction":"Vermont (Rutland Superior Court, Civil Division)","state":"VT","metro":"","industry":"","agency":"","eco":"","issuer":"Judge Robert Mello, Rutland Superior Court, Civil Division (decision of September 2020); reported by VTDigger (Alan J. Keays), September 30, 2020","authority":"Executive Order 01-20 and Addendum 4 (Exs. VT-001, VT-008); 20 V.S.A. secs. 8, 9 and 11; Vt. Const. ch. I, arts. 2 and 7 (takings and common-benefits claims raised by the counterclaimant)","instrument":"State v. Club Fitness of Vermont, Inc. / Manovill v. State of Vermont, Scott and Donovan (Rutland Super. Ct., Civ. Div.): decision granting the State\u0027s motion to dismiss the gym owner\u0027s constitutional and takings claims (19 pages, week of September 28, 2020)","title":"Judge tosses bid by Rutland gym owner to collect from state over Covid-19 closure (VTDigger, Sept. 30, 2020)","dateIssued":"2020-09-30","effective":"2020-09-30","end":"Penalty claim remained pending; settled January 15, 2021 (Ex. DUT-VT-020)","startDate":"2020-09-30","endDate":"2021-01-15","quarters":["2020Q3"],"types":["CLOSE","DUTY","EMER"],"addressees":["specified businesses (a close-contact business closed by Addendum 4); by its reasoning, every business subject to the orders"],"clause":"Mello, in the ruling, talked about the broad powers of governors during health emergencies to protect the public. He also wrote about the \u0022plethora\u0022 of case law that \u0022compel the conclusion that the actions of the State, Governor and Attorney General do not amount to governmental taking\u0022 requiring compensation.","enforcement":"civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each day in violation of the order, pending (20 V.S.A. sec. 40)","functions":[],"notes":"A Vermont court of record, in the State\u0027s own enforcement case, treated the Governor\u0027s closure order as a valid exercise of the emergency and police powers: the business owner\u0027s claims that the closure was an unlawful taking and otherwise unconstitutional were dismissed on the State\u0027s motion, the court relying on the \u0027plethora\u0027 of decisions nationwide upholding emergency orders, while the State\u0027s claim for penalties of up to $1,000 per day of violation remained pending. Character as recorded: adjudication (order_penalty layer).","sourceUrl":"https://vtdigger.org/2020/09/30/judge-tosses-bid-by-rutland-gym-owner-to-collect-from-state-over-covid-19-closure/","snapshot":"","fileExists":true,"fileBytes":410193,"grade":"secondary","character":"adjudication","description":"","collection":"DUT-VT","url":"/library/DUT-VT-019","exhibitUrl":"/exhibit/DUT-VT-019","citation":"Judge Robert Mello, Rutland Superior Court, Civil Division (decision of September 2020); reported by VTDigger (Alan J. Keays), September 30, 2020, State v. Club Fitness of Vermont, Inc. / Manovill v. State of Vermont, Scott and Donovan (Rutland Super. Ct., Civ. Div.): decision granting the State\u0027s motion to dismiss the gym owner\u0027s constitutional and takings claims (19 pages, week of September 28, 2020) (Sept. 30, 2020) (Ex. DUT-VT-019)","stateName":"Vermont","related":["DUT-VT-020","VT-023","DUT-VT-012"]}