Legal Opinion
Handy v. City of Rutland
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided May 2, 1991No. 88-028PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeck, J.
Plaintiffs, owners of a restaurant in the Town of Rut-land, appeal from a decision of the superior court declaring that defendant City of Rutland has authority to impose and collect from them a one-time hookup fee for connecting to the City’s sewage disposal system. We affirm.
The parties have stipulated to the facts. The City of Rutland owns and operates a sewage disposal facility. In 1973, the City entered into an agreement with the Town of Rutland to take and treat up to 55,000 gallons of town sewage per day from a town line which hooks into the city system. User rates were calculated on…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co. v. Town of HinesburgSupreme Court of Vermont · 1977
- In Re McDonald's Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1985
- Laird Properties New England Land Syndicate v. Mad River Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1973
- Delony v. RuckerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1957
- Hansen v. City of San BuenaventuraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Robes v. Town of HartfordSupreme Court of Vermont · 1993
- Graham v. Kochville TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 1999
- Brookside Memorials, Inc. v. Barre CitySupreme Court of Vermont · 1997
- State v. YorkeySupreme Court of Vermont · 1995
- Platt v. Town of TorreyUtah Supreme Court · 1997
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.