Donoghue v. Smith, No. 317
| Docket Nº | No. 317 |
| Citation | 119 Vt. 259, 126 A.2d 93 |
| Case Date | October 02, 1956 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
Page 93
v.
Charles P. SMITH, Jr. et al.
Page 94
[119 Vt. 260] Fayette & Deschenes, Burlington, for plaintiffs.
Robert T. Stafford, Atty. Gen., Frederick M. Reed, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendants.
Before [119 Vt. 259] JEFFORDS, C. J., CLEARY, ADAMS and HULBURD, JJ., and ALBERT W. BARNEY, Jr., Superior Judge.
[119 Vt. 260] JEFFORDS, Chief Justice.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus. An answer was filed and also a stipulation of the material facts in the case as agreed to by the parties. We recite in narrative form such of these facts as we consider to be here material.
The petitioners are the directors of the school district of the town of South Burlington. The seven first named petitionees are members of the State Board of Education and last named petitionee is the Commissioner of Education. This board is legally vested with authority to supervise the distribution of funds expended by the state for educational purposes. No. 104 of the Acts of 1949 as amended by No. 98 of the Acts of 1951 and as further amended by No. 226 of the [119 Vt. 261] Acts of 1953 provides the measure and amount of state aid to town school districts.
The petitioners pursuant to requirements of the State Board of Education and the pertinent statutes submitted a school district statistical report to the department of education. Certain information contained therein was not considered by the Board to constitute a proper basis for state aid. In this report the number of high school pupils resident in South Burlington attending school in other districts, and for whom tuition is paid by that town, was stated as follows: 'total number of pupils 198; average number of pupils 190.94; total tuition paid $43,068.50.' Of this total number of pupils 63 with an average daily attendance of 61.92 were not attending a public school, as the same is defined in No. 104 of the Acts of 1949, of another district, and tuition paid on behalf of these 63 pupils was not paid to such a public school.
On November 23, 1955, the Board of Education requested the opinion of the Attorney General on the question of whether in the calculation of state aid under No. 104 of the Acts of 1949, as subsequently amended, there can lawfully be included in the count of average daily attendance those pupils whose tuition has been paid to a school other than a public school as defined in Subdivision V of Section I of No. 104 of the Acts of 1949. The conclusion of the
Page 95
Attorney General, based on the reasons stated in his opinion, was that for the calculation of state aid under No. 104, as amended, pupils whose tuition has been paid to a school which does not qualify as a public school as defined in the Act should not be included in the count of average daily attendance.As a result of this opinion the Board reduced the average number of pupils from 190.94 to 129.53 which resulted in a reduction of $1,548.00 in the amount of state aid paid to the South Burlington school district.
The petitioners requested reconsideration and change by the Board of its action in reducing the average number of pupils and the Board did reconsider its action but made no change therein nor will it make any change nor pay any additional aid to the school district unless ordered to do so by this Court.
[119 Vt. 262] The 63 pupils, above referred to, attended three sectarian schools none of which are public schools as defined in No. 104 of the Acts of 1949, as amended, as they do not receive their principal support from public funds.
Since 1949 tuitions paid by towns to both public and non-public schools for students in attendance thereat have been a part of the basis of state aid paid by the Board to such towns.
The prayer contained in the petition is, in substance and effect, that this Court issue a writ of mandamus requiring the petitionees to pay to the petitioners the sum of $1,548 which the petitionees have refused to pay and to reimburse the petitioners in the future on the amounts paid by them for tuition of their high school pupils in non-public schools in accordance with the provisions of No. 104 of the Acts of 1949.
The pertinent sections of No. 104 of the Acts of 1949 are as follows: Section 1, subdivision I as amended by No. 98 of the Acts of 1951. 'Definition. Average daily attendance shall mean the average daily attendance for an entire town, including an incorporated school district within the town, and shall be the sum found by adding together the average daily attendance for each public school operated within the town, increased by the average number of pupils resident in such town whose tuition in the school of another town has been paid by a school district within the town, decreased by the average number of nonresident pupils attending the schools in the town. Such calculation shall be made upon the basis of the attendance during the immediately preceding full school year. The average daily attendance for a school operated within a town shall be calculated by dividing (1) the aggregate number of days of attendance by all pupils in such public school during the school year by, (2) the number of days on which such school was open during such school year'.
Subdivision V. 'Public school shall mean any school which provides elementary or secondary school training as defined by sections 4363 and 4364 of the Vermont Statutes, Revision of 1947, and which received its principal support from public funds'.
Subdivision VI. 'State aid shall mean funds granted by the state to a town pursuant to this act.'
[119 Vt. 263] Section 2, as amended by No. 226 of the Acts of 1953, as far as here material. 'Amounts. Each town shall receive, unless otherwise disqualified by any provision of this act, a sum equal to: $85.00 multiplied by the number of its public school pupils, falling within the first one hundred pupils in average daily attendance; * * *.'
Section 6. 'Repeal. Sections 4416 and 4417 of the Vermont Statutes, Revision of 1947, are hereby repealed.' (These sections relate to the matter of state aid.)
As stated by the petitioners in their main brief there is no question that from 1880, when the Legislature first provided reimbursement to school districts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:96-CV-158.
...itself. If the meaning of a statute is plain this Court must enforce the statute according to its obvious terms. See Donoghue v. Smith, 119 Vt. 259, 263, 126 A.2d 93, 96 (1956). However, if the meaning of the statute is not clear this Court must ascertain and give effect to the intention of......
-
State v. Lund, No. 82-047
...We agree. [144 Vt. 175] When interpreting statutes, the rule is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Donoghue v. Smith, 119 Vt. 259, 263, 126 A.2d 93, 96 (1956). The principal purpose of the implied consent law is to encourage the availability of scientific evidence of the prese......
-
Rebideau v. Stoneman, Civ. A. No. 75-3
...of prior legislation on the subject. See Scot v. St. Johnsbury Academy and Trustee, 86 Vt. 172, 175, 84 A. 567 (1912); Donoghue v. Smith, 119 Vt. 259, 263-264, 126 A.2d 293 We recognize that under Section 706 (b) and the contract entered into pursuant to that provision, Vermont prisoners wh......
-
Flint v. Dep't of Labor, No. 16–185
...do so would infringe on the lawmaking responsibilities granted to the Legislature by our constitutional structure. See Donoghue v. Smith, 119 Vt. 259, 267, 126 A.2d 93, 98 (1956) ( "Courts are bound to declare the law to be that which the legislature, acting within its constitutional power,......
-
In re Blue Cross Blue Shield 2022 Individual, 21-AP-220
...the timeline to be unfair or unjust, "the remedy is by a change of the law itself, to be effected by the [Legislature." Donoghue v. Smith, 119 Vt. 259, 267, 126 A.2d 93, 98 (1956). Indeed, Blue Cross has successfully advocated for legislative change when it explained that it "strongly suppo......
-
Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:96-CV-158.
...itself. If the meaning of a statute is plain this Court must enforce the statute according to its obvious terms. See Donoghue v. Smith, 119 Vt. 259, 263, 126 A.2d 93, 96 (1956). However, if the meaning of the statute is not clear this Court must ascertain and give effect to the intention of......
-
State v. Lund, No. 82-047
...We agree. [144 Vt. 175] When interpreting statutes, the rule is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Donoghue v. Smith, 119 Vt. 259, 263, 126 A.2d 93, 96 (1956). The principal purpose of the implied consent law is to encourage the availability of scientific evidence of the prese......
-
Rebideau v. Stoneman, Civ. A. No. 75-3
...of prior legislation on the subject. See Scot v. St. Johnsbury Academy and Trustee, 86 Vt. 172, 175, 84 A. 567 (1912); Donoghue v. Smith, 119 Vt. 259, 263-264, 126 A.2d 293 We recognize that under Section 706 (b) and the contract entered into pursuant to that provision, Vermont prisoners wh......