Skip to content
The COVID Project
  1. Library
  2. Standing duties: Vermont
  3. DUT-VT-019

Ex. DUT-VT-019 Standing duty Confirmed from a secondary source

State v. Club Fitness of Vermont, Inc. / Manovill v. State of Vermont, Scott and Donovan (Rutland Super. Ct., Civ. Div.): decision granting the State's motion to dismiss the gym owner's constitutional and takings claims (19 pages, week of September 28, 2020)

Judge tosses bid by Rutland gym owner to collect from state over Covid-19 closure (VTDigger, Sept. 30, 2020)

Judge Robert Mello, Rutland Superior Court, Civil Division (decision of September 2020); reported by VTDigger (Alan J. Keays), September 30, 2020 · Vermont (Rutland Superior Court, Civil Division) (Court)

Open exhibit (PDF, 401 KB)Source (opens in a new tab)
The COVID Project

The record

Jurisdiction
Vermont (Rutland Superior Court, Civil Division) · Vermont
Level
Court
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)
Issued
2020-09-30 Sept. 30, 2020
Effective
2020-09-30
End
Penalty claim remained pending; settled January 15, 2021 (Ex. DUT-VT-020) (read as 2021-01-15)
In force
Sept. 30, 2020 to Jan. 15, 2021
Quarters
2020 Q3
Limitation types
Emergency declarationBusiness closureStanding duty
Addressees
  • specified businesses (a close-contact business closed by Addendum 4); by its reasoning, every business subject to the orders
Character
adjudication
Collection
Standing duties: Vermont DUT-VT

Operative words

Mello, in the ruling, talked about the broad powers of governors during health emergencies to protect the public. He also wrote about the "plethora" of case law that "compel the conclusion that the actions of the State, Governor and Attorney General do not amount to governmental taking" requiring compensation.

Penalty

civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each day in violation of the order, pending (20 V.S.A. sec. 40)

What it required

A Vermont court of record, in the State's own enforcement case, treated the Governor's closure order as a valid exercise of the emergency and police powers: the business owner's claims that the closure was an unlawful taking and otherwise unconstitutional were dismissed on the State's motion, the court relying on the 'plethora' of decisions nationwide upholding emergency orders, while the State's claim for penalties of up to $1,000 per day of violation remained pending. Character as recorded: adjudication (order_penalty layer).

Retrieval note

The report quotes the court's footnote: 'Defendants [Manovill and Club Fitness] appear not to recognize the reality of COVID-19, the state of emergencies that have been announced throughout the country, and the attempts by courts at all levels to address situations similar to the present case.' It records that the State's injunction motion was withdrawn after 'a change in the governor's executive order permitting fitness centers to reopen with specific guidelines' (Addendum 16, June 1, 2020, Ex. VT-023), and that the State's penalty claim, 'up to $1,000 for each day in violation of that order', remained pending. No reported decision of the Vermont Supreme Court or the District of Vermont on the validity of Executive Order 01-20 or its addenda was located (CourtListener searches of both courts returned none).

A record of The COVID Project. The instrument's text is the source's; the summary fields are The COVID Project's reading of it. Not legal advice.