Legal Opinion
Badgley v. Walton
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided July 2, 2010No. 2008-385PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDooley, J.
¶ 1. Plaintiffs George Badgley and Ruth Whitney appeal the Windham Superior Court’s dismissal of their claim that the mandatory retirement of public safety officers violates the Common Benefits Clause of Chapter I, Article 7 of the Vermont Constitution. We affirm.
¶2. Plaintiffs are former state troopers who were forced to retire, under 3 V.S.A. § 459(a)(2), when they reached the age of fifty-five.1 They brought an action for injunctive relief and damages against the Vermont Department of Public Safety and the Commissioner of Public Safety. Plaintiffs argue that the mandatory retirement of…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Washington v. GlucksbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. MurgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Harris v. McRaeSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Vance v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Sadie Boyd, Madeline Klein & Town of Whitingham v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 2022
- Charles Ferry v. City of MontpelierSupreme Court of Vermont · 2023
- In re LaBerge NOVSupreme Court of Vermont · 2016
- Sara Vitale v. Bellows Falls Union High SchoolSupreme Court of Vermont · 2023
- Michael Quinlan, of the Estate of Lincy Sullivan v. Five-Town Health Alliance, Inc., dba Mountain Health Center and Sean May, PA-CSupreme Court of Vermont · 2018
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.