5 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Vermont courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. Town of Walthamgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Harris v. Town of Waltham, 158 Vt. 477, 485 , 613 A.2d 696, 700 (1992) (Allen, C.J., dissenting) (noting that “[a] principal reason for not considering issues not presented by the parties at trial or in their briefs is the great risk of deciding important issues without hearing reasoned arguments on both sides of a question”), Favreau v. Miller, 156 Vt. 222, 233 , 591 A.2d 68, 75 (1991) (Dooley, J., dissenting) (“I would not decide whether to abolish the control test. 2015See, e.g., Harris v. Town of Waltham, 158 Vt. 477, 485 , 613 A.2d 696, 700 (1992) (Allen, C.J., dissenting) (noting that “[a] principal reason for not considering issues not presented by the parties at trial or in their briefs is the great risk of deciding important issues without hearing reasoned arguments on both sides of a question”), Favreau v. Miller, 156 Vt. 222, 233 , 591 A.2d 68, 75 (1991) (Dooley, J., dissenting) (“I would not decide whether to abolish the control test. | 2 | 2 |
Favreau v. Millergreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Harris v. Town of Waltham, 158 Vt. 477, 485 , 613 A.2d 696, 700 (1992) (Allen, C.J., dissenting) (noting that “[a] principal reason for not considering issues not presented by the parties at trial or in their briefs is the great risk of deciding important issues without hearing reasoned arguments on both sides of a question”), Favreau v. Miller, 156 Vt. 222, 233 , 591 A.2d 68, 75 (1991) (Dooley, J., dissenting) (“I would not decide whether to abolish the control test. 2015See, e.g., Harris v. Town of Waltham, 158 Vt. 477, 485 , 613 A.2d 696, 700 (1992) (Allen, C.J., dissenting) (noting that “[a] principal reason for not considering issues not presented by the parties at trial or in their briefs is the great risk of deciding important issues without hearing reasoned arguments on both sides of a question”), Favreau v. Miller, 156 Vt. 222, 233 , 591 A.2d 68, 75 (1991) (Dooley, J., dissenting) (“I would not decide whether to abolish the control test. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Campanelligreen2 sentences2015We have not had the benefit of briefing and argument on that issue since the parties agreed that control was unnecessary and that is the law of this case.”). [6] See, e.g., State v. Campanelli , 142 Vt. 362, 363 , 454 A.2d 1248, 1249 (1982) (“On brief and during oral argument, the State confessed error in one of the convictions . . . . 2015We have not had the benefit of briefing and argument on that issue since the parties agreed that control was unnecessary and that is the law of this case.”). [6] See, e.g., State v. Campanelli , 142 Vt. 362, 363 , 454 A.2d 1248, 1249 (1982) (“On brief and during oral argument, the State confessed error in one of the convictions . . . . | 1 | 1 |
Altz v. . Leibersongreen2 sentences1991See Altz v. Leiberson, 233 N.Y. 16, 18 , 134 N.E. 703, 704 (1922) (Cardozo, J.) (general safety statute eliminated the control test; “Apter words could hardly have been chosen . . . .”). 1991See Altz v. Leiberson, 233 N.Y. 16, 18 , 134 N.E. 703, 704 (1922) (Cardozo, J.) (general safety statute eliminated the control test; “Apter words could hardly have been chosen . . . .”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Athol Daily News v. Board of Review of the Division of Employment & Training
green
2 sentences2007To support its position that the control test in part A is essentially the common law master-servant test, FOE *599 cites Athol Daily News v. Board of Review of Division of Employment & Training, 439 Mass. 171 , 786 N.E.2d 365 (2003), in which the newspaper employer appealed from the Board's finding that newspaper deliverers were eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. 2007To support its position that the control test in part A is essentially the common law master-servant test, FOE cites Athol Daily News v. Board of Review of Division of Employment & Training, 786 N.E.2d 365 (Mass. 2003), in which the newspaper employer appealed from the Board’s finding that newspaper deliverers were eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.