5 Vermont opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hamilton, Superintendent v. Verdowgreen2 sentences2017In Killington, the Court explained, “‘[W]hen a formal claim of executive privilege is made for confidential communications of the chief executive, or confidential communications of other government officials of an advisory or deliberative nature, there is a presumptive privilege, with the burden upon those seeking to compel disclosure.’” 153 Vt. at 638 (quoting Hamilton v. Verdow, 287 Md. 544, 563 (1980)). 1990As the court said in Hamilton v. Verdow: [Wjhen a formal claim of executive privilege is made for confidential communications of the chief executive, or confidential communications of other government officials of an advisory or deliberative nature, there is a presumptive privilege, with the burden upon those seeking to compel disclosure. 287 Md. at 563 , 414 A.2d at 925 ; see also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 708 . | 1 | 2 |
In re PRB No. 2013-145green1 sentence2019See, e.g., PRB No. 2013-145 , 204 Vt. at 621-22 , 165 A.3d at 141 (applying Standards 4.13 as presumptive standard where respondent failed to reconcile trust account for 9 months). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Nixongreen1 sentence1990As the court said in Hamilton v. Verdow: [Wjhen a formal claim of executive privilege is made for confidential communications of the chief executive, or confidential communications of other government officials of an advisory or deliberative nature, there is a presumptive privilege, with the burden upon those seeking to compel disclosure. 287 Md. at 563 , 414 A.2d at 925 ; see also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 708 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Killington, Ltd. v. Lash
green
2 sentences2017In Killington, the Court explained, “‘[W]hen a formal claim of executive privilege is made for confidential communications of the chief executive, or confidential communications of other government officials of an advisory or deliberative nature, there is a presumptive privilege, with the burden upon those seeking to compel disclosure.’” 153 Vt. at 638 (quoting Hamilton v. Verdow, 287 Md. 544, 563 (1980)). 1995Killington, 153 Vt. at 639 , 572 A.2d at 1375 . | 2 | 1995–2017 |
University of Vermont & State Agricultural College v. Carter
green
2 sentences1998This is the so-called doctrine of presumptive (or lost) grant, which we endorsed most recently in University of Vermont v. Carter, 110 Vt. 206 , 3 A.2d 533 (1939). 1998This is the so-called doctrine of presumptive (or lost) grant, which we endorsed most recently in University of Vermont v. Carter, 110 Vt. 206 , 3 A.2d 533 (1939). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.