5 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Teague v. Lanegreen2 sentences2018"For purposes of the retroactivity test, a new rule is one that overrules or significantly alters a prior decision." White , 2007 VT 113 , ¶ 9, 182 Vt. 510 , 944 A.2d 203 (citing Teague , 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ). 2018"For purposes of the retroactivity test, a new rule is one that overrules or significantly alters a prior decision." White , 2007 VT 113 , ¶ 9, 182 Vt. 510 , 944 A.2d 203 (citing Teague , 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Shattuckgreen2 sentences2007Cf. Shattuck, 141 Vt. at 528-30 , 450 A.2d at 1124-25 (stating that State v. Gardner, 139 Vt. 456 , 433 A.2d 249 (1981), announced a new rule under the retroactivity test insofar as it decided that trial court must exercise discretion in admitting prior convictions of defendants for impeachment purposes to comply with Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights). 2007Cf. Shattuck, 141 Vt. at 528-30 , 450 A.2d at 1124-25 (stating that State v. Gardner, 139 Vt. 456 , 433 A.2d 249 (1981), announced a new rule under the retroactivity test insofar as it decided that trial court must exercise discretion in admitting prior convictions of defendants for impeachment purposes to comply with Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights). | 2 | 2 |
Whorton v. Bocktinggreen2 sentences2018See Whorton , 549 U.S. at 416 , 127 S.Ct. 1173 (explaining that rule is new if it is inconsistent with prior precedent). ¶ 13. 2018See Whorton , 549 U.S. at 416 , 127 S.Ct. 1173 (explaining that rule is new if it is inconsistent with prior precedent). ¶ 13. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2007Brown, 165 Vt. at 83 , 676 A.2d at 353 ; see also Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 (1989) (a new rule “breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States”). 2007Brown, 165 Vt. at 83 , 676 A.2d at 353 ; see also Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 (1989) (a new rule “breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States”). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Gardner
green
2 sentences2007Cf. Shattuck, 141 Vt. at 528-30 , 450 A.2d at 1124-25 (stating that State v. Gardner, 139 Vt. 456 , 433 A.2d 249 (1981), announced a new rule under the retroactivity test insofar as it decided that trial court must exercise discretion in admitting prior convictions of defendants for impeachment purposes to comply with Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights). 2007Cf. Shattuck, 141 Vt. at 528-30 , 450 A.2d at 1124-25 (stating that State v. Gardner, 139 Vt. 456 , 433 A.2d 249 (1981), announced a new rule under the retroactivity test insofar as it decided that trial court must exercise discretion in admitting prior convictions of defendants for impeachment purposes to comply with Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. White
green
2 sentences2018"For purposes of the retroactivity test, a new rule is one that overrules or significantly alters a prior decision." White , 2007 VT 113 , ¶ 9, 182 Vt. 510 , 944 A.2d 203 (citing Teague , 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ). 2018"For purposes of the retroactivity test, a new rule is one that overrules or significantly alters a prior decision." White , 2007 VT 113 , ¶ 9, 182 Vt. 510 , 944 A.2d 203 (citing Teague , 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. White
green
1 sentence2018"For purposes of the retroactivity test, a new rule is one that overrules or significantly alters a prior decision." White , 2007 VT 113 , ¶ 9, 182 Vt. 510 , 944 A.2d 203 (citing Teague , 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Johnson
red
1 sentence2017Id . at 563 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Petrucelli
green
2 sentences2015It further explained that pursuant to the retroactivity principle laid out in State v. Petrucelli, 156 Vt. 382 , 592 A.2d 365 (1991), the ten-year limitations period applied to petitioner’s underlying offense. 4 We note that, during the change-of-plea hearing, the State mentioned only the years 2000-2003, while the State’s filed information alleges conduct that took place through 2005. 2015It further explained that pursuant to the retroactivity principle laid out in State v. Petrucelli, 156 Vt. 382 , 592 A.2d 365 (1991), the ten-year limitations period applied to petitioner’s underlying offense. 4 We note that, during the change-of-plea hearing, the State mentioned only the years 2000-2003, while the State’s filed information alleges conduct that took place through 2005. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.