Rutland Cable T.V. Inc. v. City of Rutland, 1905

Docket NºNo. 1905
Citation166 A.2d 191, 122 Vt. 162
Case DateNovember 29, 1960
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont

Page 191

166 A.2d 191
122 Vt. 162
RUTLAND CABLE T. V., INC.
v.
CITY OF RUTLAND and the City Council of Rutland.
No. 1905.
Supreme Court of Vermont.
Nov. 29, 1960.

Page 192

[122 Vt. 163] Bloomer & Bloomer, Rutland, for plaintiff.

Richard F. Sullivan, Rutland, for defendants.

Before [122 Vt. 162] HULBURD, C. J., and HOLDEN, SHANGRAW, BARNEY and SMITH, JJ.

[122 Vt. 163] HOLDEN, Justice.

This is the third time the petitioner has resorted to mandamus in aid of its application of September 10, 1959 to the City Council of Rutland for a permit to construct television cable facilities in that city. The prior proceedings are reported in 121 Vt. 399, 159 A.2d 83 and 122 Vt. 1, 163 A.2d 117.

The present petition alleges in substance that following the mandate of this Court, at the January Term 1960, the City Council caused to be published the application of the petitioner and a similar application of the Bellows Falls Cable Corporation together with a notice of hearing on both applications at 8:30 p. m. and 7:30 p. m. respectively on March 30, 1960.

The petition sets forth the following provisions of Chapter XII of the Ordinances of the City of Rutland upon which it relies: '* * * No exclusive or entire right or franchise to place or maintain any poles, wires, conduties or other electrical fixtures or apparatus, in, over or under any street or public way or place in the City, which shall be granted pursuant to this Chapter, shall be construed as giving such person, firm or corporation any exclusive right of provileges therein.'

'Each such application shall be advertised at least once within seven days after such application to the City Council in a newspaper published in the City of Rutland, and such application shall be granted at the next regular meeting of the City Council unless [122 Vt. 164] objection is made at such meeting of the City Council by some person, firm or corporation to the granting of such application.

'In the event such objection is made the City Council may, in its discretion, order a hearing to be held on such application before the City Council, or the light and poles committee of such Council, at a time and place to be designated by the City Council, and a notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be mailed to the applicant, postage prepaid, to his or its last known address, and a notice of such hearing shall be published forthwith in one issue of a newspaper published in the City of Rutland. All advertising under the provisions of this section shall be done at the expense of the applicant. Immediately after such hearing the City Council shall make such order in regard to such application as it shall deem just to all the parties concerned. See P.L. 6415 * * *'.

By letter dated March 21, 1960 the Bellows Falls Cable Corporation registered a

Page 193

protest to the granting of the petitioner's application. The same communication advised the City Council that if protest was made to its application for a permit it requested a hearing. An objection was made to the application of the Bellows Falls company and hearing was held on both applications as scheduled on March 30, 1960. At this meeting of the Council a stenographic reporter was present and made a verbatim record of the proceedings. The hearings on each application were limited to one hour, over the objection of the petitioner. However after the hearing of March 30 was concluded, a second meeting of the Council was called on published notice on April 27, 1960. No verbatim report of the second hearing was made.

The petition further alleges that during the hearings objection with supporting evidence was made to the application of the Bellows Falls Cable Corporation but no objection was asserted against the issuance of a permit to the petitioner.

The complaint goes on to state that a permit has been issued to the Bellows Falls Cable Corporation but no permit has been issued to the petitioner. It is alleged that the action of the City Council constitutes a flagrant abuse of authority to the irreparable damage of the petitioner.

The members of the City Council as petitionees, filed an answer to the complaint on October 18, 1960. The answer admits substantially [122 Vt. 165] all of the allegations of the petition except to deny petitioner's averments that no objection was made to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • City of Burlington v. New York Times Co., 86-014
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • July 24, 1987
    ...facially overbroad, it is rendered reasonable when read together with overriding state law. Rutland Cable T.V., Inc. v. City of Rutland, 122 Vt. 162, 165, 166 A.2d 191, 193 (1960). The City does not, however, indicate which "well established principles of Vermont municipal law" are to be re......
  • Corcoran v. Village of Bennington, 52-68
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • June 3, 1970
    ...refuse a license or permit,' said this Court, speaking through now Chief Justice Holden in Rutland Cable T. V. v. City of Rutland, 122 Vt. 162, 167, 166 A.2d 191. In that case, much as in this case, there was a refusal by municipal authorities to act on an application on its merits. If it w......
  • Dana Corp. v. Yusitis, 1936
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • June 4, 1968
    ...6, 112 A. 228; Couture v. Selectmen of Town of Berkshire, 121 Vt. 359, 361, 159 A.2d 78, and Rutland Cable T.V., Inc. v. City of Rutland, 122 Vt. 162, 168, 163 A.2d Significantly, in the Glover case itself, the circumstances in Town of West Rutland v. Rutland Ry. L. & P. Co., 96 Vt. 413, 12......
  • Burlington v. Fairpoint Communications Inc., 08-019.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • May 29, 2009
    ...that there are pragmatic limits on the right announced in § 2502. ¶ 16. Nor is our holding in Rutland Cable T.V., Inc. v. City of Rutland, 122 Vt. 162, 166 A.2d 191 (1960), to the contrary. There, a cable television provider sought a writ of mandamus to compel the city council to consider t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT