G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tidermann v. Wheeler
“When reviewing jury instructions, we look at the instructions as a whole to determine whether they capture the true spirit and doctrine of the law.” Irving v. Agency of Transp., 172 Vt. 527, 530 (2001) (citations and quotations omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Murray v. City of Barre
See Irving v. Agency of Transp., 172 Vt. 527, 529 (2001) (mem.).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Heffernan
See Irving v. Agency of Transp. , 172 Vt. 527 , 528, 768 A.2d 1286 , 1289 (2001) (mem.) ("[T]he decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.").
cited
Cited "see"
Amerio v. Watson
See Irving v. Agency of Transp., 172 Vt. 527, 528 , (2001) (citing Brueckner v. Norwich univ., 169 Vt. 118, 122 (1990)).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Haner
See Irving, 172 Vt. at 528 , 768 A.2d at 1289 (holding that we will reverse a trial court decision on a motion for new trial only for abuse of discretion).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Haner
See Irving, 172 Vt. at 528 , 768 A.2d at 1289 (holding that we will reverse a trial court decision on a motion for new trial only for abuse of discretion).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Daniel Shaffer, in His Capacity as the Administrator of the Estate of Jared T. Shaffer v. Northeast Kingdom Human Services, Inc.
V.R.E. 701; see also Irving v. Agency of Transp., 172 Vt. 527, 529 , 768 A.2d 1286, 1289 (2001) (explaining differences between expert and lay witnesses and associated limitations to testimony). ¶ 23.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Op24-174_0.pdf
V.R.E. 701; see also Irving v. Agency of Transp., 172 Vt. 527, 529 , 768 A.2d 1286, 1289 (2001) (explaining differences between expert and lay witnesses and associated limitations to testimony). ¶ 23.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shahi v. Madden
However, when considering a motion for a new trial, the trial court must “weigh the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Hardy v. Berisha, 144 Vt. 130, 133 , 474 A.2d 93, 95 (1984); see also Irving, 172 Vt. at 527 , 768 A.2d at 1288 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Jordan v. Nissan North America, Inc.
V.R.E. 701; see also Irving, 172 Vt. at 529 , 768 A.2d at 1289 (“[0]pinions from lay witnesses are limited to matters which they *473 have perceived directly.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re Magistrate Douglas P. COHN
No. 01-012.
Supreme Court of Vermont.
Feb 6, 2001.
Published
Upon recommendation of the Judicial Conduct Board and no appeal having been filed, the recommendation of the Board filed on January 9, 2001, is approved and Magistrate Douglas P. Cohn is hereby publicly reprimanded for violating:
Canon 1, by failing to observe high standards of conduct to . preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary;
Canon 3B(4), by failing to act in a dignified and courteous manner towards others whom he dealt with in an official capacity; and
Canon 4A, by acting in a manner that demeaned the judicial office and interfered with the proper performance of his judicial duties.
Rules of Supreme Court for Disciplinary Control of Judges, Rule 11.