Fercenia v. Guiduli (2003)
green
· 60 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 9 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200420152026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Dep't of Taxes v. Marshall (2005)
Fercenia v. Guiduli, 2003 VT 50, ¶ 10, n.1 (mem.).
green
Bessette v. Dep't of Corrections (2005)
Fercenia v. Guiduli, 2003 VT 50, ¶ 10, n.1 (mem.).
green
Michael Quinlan, of the Estate of Lincy Sullivan v. Five-Town Health Alliance, Inc., dba Mountain Health Cent… (2018)
See Fercenia , 2003 VT 50 , ¶ 12, 175 Vt. 541 , 830 A.2d 55 ("The issue here is not one of failure to give effective notice of plaintiff's claim, but instead whether plaintiff's failure to file defendants' waiver of service within the time required by the rules constituted a failure to properly commence plaintiff's action and toll the applicable statute of limitations."). 6 Plaintiff also alleges that the alleged classification violates his rights under the Equal Protection …
green
Laura Clark as Personal Representative of the Estate of Christopher Tylie Jackson-Clark v. Richard Baker, M.D… (2016)
Id.; see Fercenia v. Guiduli, 2003 VT 50, ¶¶ 9, 12 , 175 Vt. 541 , 830 A.2d 55 (mem.) (following Weisburgh).
green
Clarke v. Abate (2013)
See Fercenia v. Guiduli, 2003 VT 50, ¶ 15 , 175 Vt. 541 , 830 A.2d 55 (mem.) (declining to read medical malpractice negligence claim in complaint “as one of intentional fraud”).
green
beebe v. eisemann (2023)
See Fercenia v. Guiduli, 2003 VT 50 , 4 8, 175 Vt. 541 (mem.).
green
Beebe v. Eisemann (2011)
See Fercenia v. Guiduli, 2003 VT 50, ¶ 8 , 175 Vt. 541 (mem.).
green
Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madore (2004)
See Fercenia v. Guiduli, 2003 VT 50 , Para. 6, 830 A.2d 55 .
green
Beebe v. Eisemann (2012)
See Fercenia, 2003 VT 50, ¶ 13 (‘We require plaintiffs to strictly comply with the [Rules of Civil Procedure] when expiration of the statute of limitations is an issue.”); Beecher, 170 Vt. at 141 , 743 A.2d at 1096 (“[E]ven if plaintiff’s attorney was not actually aware of the limitations period, he must be charged with that knowledge.”).