 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brigham v. State9/12/2005
standing to maintain their claims. To satisfy the standing requirement, a plaintiff must show: (1) injury-in-fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability. Parker, 169 Vt. at 77, 726 A.2d at 480. Thus, the plaintiff must allege a personal injury traceable to the defendant's conduct that the court can remedy by granting the sought-after relief. Id. at 78, 726 A.2d at 480.
17. The State's arguments that plaintiffs do not have standing ignores our decision in Brigham I. Just as the students and taxpayers in Brigham I had standing to maintain their claims for unequal educational opportunity and disproportionate taxation, the plaintiffs in this case, who allege the same type of injuries, also have standing. Plaintiffs here seek an injunction and declaration that Act 60 is unconstitutional. Just as the plaintiffs' injuries in Brigham I were remedied by our declaration that the Foundation Plan was unconstitutional, id. at 268, 692 A.2d at 397, the plaintiffs' injuries in this case will also be redressed if they prevail on the merits of their claims and the court declares the challenged aspects of Act 60 and Act 68 to be unconstitutional.
18. The State's final argument is that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs' claims were mooted by Act 68 and the consolidation of the Whitingham and Wilmington school districts. The State contends that Act 68 corrected the alleged constitutional deficiencies of Act 60's funding mechanisms, and that the consolidation of the schools will relieve plaintiffs' alleged tax burdens and poor curriculum choices. Plaintiffs contend that their claims are not moot because neither Act 68 nor the school-district consolidation remedied the constitutional violations they allege in their complaint. As plaintiffs correctly point out, a change in the law does not automatically moot a claim that is based on a prior version of the law. Northeastern Florida Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 662 (1993) (recognizing that constitutional challenge to statute was not mooted by subsequent statutory amendment because plaintiffs claimed that amended statute "disadvantage them in the same fundamental way"). We decline to consider the State's merit-based argument that plaintiffs' case is moot, and remand for the superior court to rule on the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint.
Reversed and remanded.
John A. Dooley, Associate Justice
Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice
Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice
Harold E. Eaton, Jr., District Judge, Specially Assigned
Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice (Ret.), Specially Assigned
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Vermont Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|