In re Carrier, 537 A.2d 135 (Vt. 1987). · Go Syfert
In re Carrier, 537 A.2d 135 (Vt. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
148 Vt. at 635 “not among those parties statutorily allowed to bring appeals”2 citing cases2 citing courts quote it
  • In re Cabot Creamery Coop., Inc., 663 A.2d 940 (Vt. 1995).published
    In re Carrier, 148 Vt. 635, 635 , 537 A.2d 135, 137 (1987) (mem.) (permissive party not permitted to appeal because he was “not among those parties statutorily allowed to bring appeals to this Court, 10 V.S.A. §§ 6089(b) and 6085(c)”).
  • In re Verizon Wireless Barton Permit, 2010 VT 62, 6 A.3d 713.published 4 cites
    See In re Carrier, 148 Vt. 635, 635 , 537 A.2d 135, 135 (1987) (mem.) (dismissing appeal where the appellants lacked standing because they were "not among those parties statutorily allowed to bring appeals").
537 A.2d at 137 cited at this page1 citing case
  • In re Cabot Creamery Coop., Inc., 663 A.2d 940 (Vt. 1995).published
    In re Carrier, 148 Vt. 635, 635 , 537 A.2d 135, 137 (1987) (mem.) (permissive party not permitted to appeal because he was “not among those parties statutorily allowed to bring appeals to this Court, 10 V.S.A. §§ 6089(b) and 6085(c)”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re Bernard and Suzanne CARRIER
No. 87-291.
Supreme Court of Vermont.
Oct 22, 1987.
Published opinion
537 A.2d 135
1987 Vt. LEXIS 562
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Appellants seek review of a decision of the State Environmental Board, dismissing their appeal from the grant of an Act 250 permit by the District Environmental Commission. Appellants seek review not on the merits of the Board’s decision, but rather a review of the manner in which the Board reached its decision. Appellants assert that the Board “exceeded its jurisdiction and acted in contravention of statutes, their rules and due process considerations in dismissing the appeal.”

We find that appellants lack standing to appeal the Board’s decision to this Court since they are not among those parties statutorily allowed to bring appeals to this Court, 10 V.S.A. §§ 6089(b) and 6085(c), and, therefore, we must dismiss the appeal. In re George F. Adams & Co., 134 Vt. 172, 174, 353 A.2d 576, 577 (1976).

Anticipating the possibility of dismissal, and in the event of such an occurrence, appellants also seek to amend their appeal to one for extraordinary relief under V.R.A.P. 21. One of the requirements of a proceeding under V.R.A.P. 21 is an allegation, verified or supported by an affidavit, stating why there is no adequate remedy by way of a proceeding for extraordinary relief in the superior court. Appellants have made no such representation herein, and, in fact, have already filed such an action in the Orleans Superior Court, seeking review of the Environmental Board’s dismissal of their appeal. We believe this to be the correct route for appellants to follow in this instance.

[*636] Appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Appellants’ motion to amend their appeal is denied.