5 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Currier v. Letourneaugreen2 sentences2011To serve this goal, we found it fair to have the broker bear the risk of his or her failure to obtain a written listing agreement, and to apply “a prophylactic rule under which a broker without a written listing agreement cannot recover a commission.” Id.; Currier, 135 Vt. at 200 , 373 A.2d at 525 (stating that the law on the question is “unequivocal; a duly executed listing agreement is the sole vehicle upon which a broker can predicate recovery of any commission”). ¶ 26. 2011To serve this goal, we found it fair to have the broker bear the risk of his or her failure to obtain a written listing agreement, and to apply “a prophylactic rule under which a broker without a written listing agreement cannot recover a commission.” Id.; Currier, 135 Vt. at 200 , 373 A.2d at 525 (stating that the law on the question is “unequivocal; a duly executed listing agreement is the sole vehicle upon which a broker can predicate recovery of any commission”). ¶ 26. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Breamangreen2 sentences2009Absent an underlying constitutional right to counsel in state post-conviction proceedings, there is "no constitutional right to insist on the Anders procedures which were designed solely to protect that underlying constitutional right." Id. at 557, 107 S.Ct. 1990 . " Anders established a prophylactic framework that is relevant when, and only when, a litigant has a previously established constitutional right to counsel." Id. at 555, 107 S.Ct. 1990 ; see also People v. Breaman, 939 P.2d 1348 , 1351 n. 2 (Colo.1997) (en banc) (citing Finley and concluding that appointed attorney who seeks to with 2009“Anders established a prophylactic framework that is relevant when, and only when, a litigant has a previously established constitutional right to counsel.” Id. at 555; see also People v. Breaman, 939 P.2d 1348 , 1351 n.2 (Colo. 1997) (en banc) (citing Finley and concluding that appointed attorney who seeks to withdraw from representing defendant in post-conviction proceeding may inform court that he or she believes defendant’s claims are without merit and request permission to withdraw without filing Anders brief). ¶ 10. | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania v. Finleygreen2 sentences2009Absent an underlying constitutional right to counsel in state post-conviction proceedings, there is "no constitutional right to insist on the Anders procedures which were designed solely to protect that underlying constitutional right." Id. at 557, 107 S.Ct. 1990 . " Anders established a prophylactic framework that is relevant when, and only when, a litigant has a previously established constitutional right to counsel." Id. at 555, 107 S.Ct. 1990 ; see also People v. Breaman, 939 P.2d 1348 , 1351 n. 2 (Colo.1997) (en banc) (citing Finley and concluding that appointed attorney who seeks to with 2009“Anders established a prophylactic framework that is relevant when, and only when, a litigant has a previously established constitutional right to counsel.” Id. at 555; see also People v. Breaman, 939 P.2d 1348 , 1351 n.2 (Colo. 1997) (en banc) (citing Finley and concluding that appointed attorney who seeks to withdraw from representing defendant in post-conviction proceeding may inform court that he or she believes defendant’s claims are without merit and request permission to withdraw without filing Anders brief). ¶ 10. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2017Miranda , 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . *447 ¶ 53. 2017Miranda , 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . *447 ¶ 53. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. West
green
2 sentences2003We held that a showing of prejudice was unnecessary because of the nature of the right involved and because a prejudice requirement “would be wholly inconsistent with a prophylactic rule created to ensure that a waiver is informed, voluntary and intekigent.” Id. at 201 , 667 A.2d at 546 . 2003We held that a showing of prejudice was unnecessary because of the nature of the right involved and because a prejudice requirement “would be wholly inconsistent with a prophylactic rule created to ensure that a waiver is informed, voluntary and intekigent.” Id. at 201 , 667 A.2d at 546 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Solem v. Stumes
green
1 sentence1986In Solem v. Stumes, supra, 465 U.S. at 646 , the Court carefully explained that Edwards changed the law for determining waiver of the Miranda right to counsel from one of case-by-case analysis to the application of a prophylactic rule. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.