Vermont rule in Vermont

2021P’ship I, Nos. 122-7-04 Vtec, 210-9-08 Vtec, and 136-8-10 Vtec at 10–11 (Apr. 12, 2011) 5 At the time Gregory v. Poulin was decided, ten days was the time limit to file a motion to alter or amend under V.R.C.P. 59(e); it was extended to 28 days in 2018 to match the changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. -9- (quoting 11 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1); see Drumheller v. Drumheller, 2009 VT 23, ¶ 29 , 185 Vt. 417 (“Vermont Rule 59(e) is substantially identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and we have looked to federal decisions int

2021P’ship I, Nos. 122-7-04 Vtec, 210-9-08 Vtec, and 136-8-10 Vtec at 10–11 (Apr. 12, 2011) 5 At the time Gregory v. Poulin was decided, ten days was the time limit to file a motion to alter or amend under V.R.C.P. 59(e); it was extended to 28 days in 2018 to match the changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. -9- (quoting 11 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1); see Drumheller v. Drumheller, 2009 VT 23, ¶ 29 , 185 Vt. 417 (“Vermont Rule 59(e) is substantially identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and we have looked to federal decisions int

2006Vermont Rule of Evidence 803(4) allows statements “made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symp toms, pain, or sensations.” Unlike the federal rule, however, the Vermont rule does not allow admission of ‘“statements of the inception and cause of a condition or symptoms’ ” even if the statements are “‘pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.’” State v. Derouchie, 153 Vt. 29, 32 , 568 A.2d 416, 417 (1989) (quoting Reporter’s Notes, V.R.E. 803(4)).

2006Vermont Rule of Evidence 803(4) allows statements “made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symp toms, pain, or sensations.” Unlike the federal rule, however, the Vermont rule does not allow admission of ‘“statements of the inception and cause of a condition or symptoms’ ” even if the statements are “‘pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.’” State v. Derouchie, 153 Vt. 29, 32 , 568 A.2d 416, 417 (1989) (quoting Reporter’s Notes, V.R.E. 803(4)).

2025See In re Grundstein, 2018 VT 10, ¶ 27 , 206 Vt. 575 (explaining that even if applicant “established the general elements of estoppel,” exceptional circumstances which would justify estopping the State did not exist because “[a]ny 2 There was conflicting testimony as to whether the verbal feedback grievant received from his supervisor constituted an oral reprimand for purposes of progressive discipline. 5 injustice to applicant is outweighed by the significant public interest in ensuring that candidates for admission to the Vermont bar possess good moral character and fitness”).

2020Grundstein, 2018 VT 10, ¶¶ 26-27 (observing that even had applicant “established the general elements of estoppel,” exceptional circumstances which would justify estopping the State did not exist because “[a]ny injustice to applicant is outweighed by the significant public interest in ensuring that candidates for admission to the Vermont bar possess good moral character and fitness”). 8 because he did not raise them before the Board.

2019See State v. Amidon, 2008 VT 122, ¶ 16 , 185 Vt. 1 (explaining that where a Vermont rule is based on a federal rule, “we look to federal cases interpreting the federal rule for guidance.”); Reporter’s Notes—2018 Amendment, V.R.C.P. 6 (stating that “Rule 6(b) is revised to adopt the format and language of F.R.C.P. 6(b) as restyled in 2007 and amended in 2009.”).

2019See State v. Amidon, 2008 VT 122, ¶ 16 , 185 Vt. 1 (explaining that where a Vermont rule is based on a federal rule, “we look to federal cases interpreting the federal rule for guidance.”); Reporter’s Notes—2018 Amendment, V.R.C.P. 6 (stating that “Rule 6(b) is revised to adopt the format and language of F.R.C.P. 6(b) as restyled in 2007 and amended in 2009.”).

2017See Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 , 301, 310, 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) (holding with respect to collateral challenges to criminal convictions that "new constitutional rules of criminal procedure [announced in case law] will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are announced," and explaining that "a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final"); State v. White , 2007 VT 113 , ¶ 11, 182 Vt. 510 , 944 A.2d 203 (addressing retroactivity of Court's decision

2017See Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 , 301, 310, 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) (holding with respect to collateral challenges to criminal convictions that "new constitutional rules of criminal procedure [announced in case law] will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are announced," and explaining that "a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final"); State v. White , 2007 VT 113 , ¶ 11, 182 Vt. 510 , 944 A.2d 203 (addressing retroactivity of Court's decision

2014Where the Vermont rule is substantially identical to the corresponding federal rule, the Vermont Supreme Court has “looked to federal decisions interpreting the federal rule for guidance in applying the Vermont rule.” Drumheller v. Drumheller, 185 Vt. 417, 429 (2009) (citing In re Robinson/Keir Partnership, 154 Vt. 50, 54 (1990)).

2014Where the Vermont rule is substantially identical to the corresponding federal rule, the Vermont Supreme Court has “looked to federal decisions interpreting the federal rule for guidance in applying the Vermont rule.” Drumheller v. Drumheller, 185 Vt. 417, 429 (2009) (citing In re Robinson/Keir Partnership, 154 Vt. 50, 54 (1990)).

2024Under such circumstances, Vermont law is clear: “Where a Vermont defendant seeks presentence credit for days spent in custody in another jurisdiction, he bears the burden of establishing that the charge on which sentence is imposed was the sole basis of the custody at issue.” State v. Coe, 150 Vt. 448, 452 (1988) (emphasis added).

2023As described by the Vermont Supreme Court, the rule is this: “Where a Vermont defendant seeks presentence credit for days spent in custody in another jurisdiction, he bears the burden of establishing that the charge on which [the Vermont] sentence is imposed was the sole basis of the custody at issue.” Coe, 150 Vt. at 452 .

2017Vallee’s reading also goes against Vermont's rule on vested rights, Winhall, 140 Vt. at 181 (a permit application vests “as of the time when [a] proper application is filed”), and against past practice regarding stormwater permits, Hannaford Bros., No. WQ-01-01 at 13 (June. 29, 2001) 8 The motion to reconsider offers a link to a map, not on the record in the summary judgment proceedings, purporting to show ownership of certain roads.

2015Smith v. Winhall Planning Comm’n, 140 Vt. 178 , 181–182 (1981).

2025See Duval v. Diamondstone, 132 Vt. 176, 179 (1974) (noting the longstanding Vermont rule that, generally, “the matter of insurance coverage confuses the issues and creates undue prejudice”).

2025See Duval v. Diamondstone, 132 Vt. 176, 179 (1974) (noting the longstanding Vermont rule that, generally, “the matter of insurance coverage confuses the issues and creates undue prejudice”).

2024The Vermont claim was preempted because Congress intended the Act to “establish an all-encompassing program of water pollution regulation,” and that “if affected States [like Vermont] were allowed to impose separate discharge standards on a[n out-of-state] single point source, the inevitable result would be a serious interference with the achievement of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Id. at 492-93 (quotations omitted).

2024The Vermont claim was preempted because Congress intended the Act to “establish an all-encompassing program of water pollution regulation,” and that “if affected States [like Vermont] were allowed to impose separate discharge standards on a[n out-of-state] single point source, the inevitable result would be a serious interference with the achievement of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Id. at 492-93 (quotations omitted).

2024Rufo, 502 U.S. at 385 ; see Coles v. Coles, 2013 VT 36, ¶ 6 , 193 V. 605 , 73 A.3d 681 (citing rule that Supreme Court looks to federal cases when analyzing Vermont rule that is identical to its federal counterpart). ¶ 19.

2024Rufo, 502 U.S. at 385 ; see Coles v. Coles, 2013 VT 36, ¶ 6 , 193 V. 605 , 73 A.3d 681 (citing rule that Supreme Court looks to federal cases when analyzing Vermont rule that is identical to its federal counterpart). ¶ 19.

2021We are also mindful in this instance that if we grant the motion and enter the proposed stipulation filed by the parties in December, we would ultimately be vacating a final judgment, which should be done “guardedly and only in extraordinary circumstances,” Miller v. Miller, 2008 VT 86, ¶27 (2008).

2021We are also mindful in this instance that if we grant the motion and enter the proposed stipulation filed by the parties in December, we would ultimately be vacating a final judgment, which should be done “guardedly and only in extraordinary circumstances,” Miller v. Miller, 2008 VT 86, ¶27 (2008).

2020Reporter’s Notes, V.R.E. 901. “[F]ederal cases, or cases in the courts of states which have adopted the Uniform or Federal Rules, are an authoritative source for the interpretation of identical provisions of the Vermont Rules.” Reporter’s Notes, V.R.E. 101; see also State v. Wheel, 155 Vt. 587, 603 , 587 A.2d 933, 943 (1990) (relying on federal case law in interpreting Vermont rule of evidence because Vermont rule is “virtually identical to its federal counterpart and federal cases ‘are an authoritative source for the interpretation of identical provisions of the Vermont Rules’ ” (citation omi

2020Reporter’s Notes, V.R.E. 901. “[F]ederal cases, or cases in the courts of states which have adopted the Uniform or Federal Rules, are an authoritative source for the interpretation of identical provisions of the Vermont Rules.” Reporter’s Notes, V.R.E. 101; see also State v. Wheel, 155 Vt. 587, 603 , 587 A.2d 933, 943 (1990) (relying on federal case law in interpreting Vermont rule of evidence because Vermont rule is “virtually identical to its federal counterpart and federal cases ‘are an authoritative source for the interpretation of identical provisions of the Vermont Rules’ ” (citation omi

2019As explained in Argentine Republic v. Nat’l Grid PLC, “[e]very court to have considered this question has held that Rule 6(b) may be used only to extend time limits imposed by the court itself or by other Federal Rules, but not by statute.” 637 F.3d 365, 368 (D.C.

2019As explained in Argentine Republic v. Nat’l Grid PLC, “[e]very court to have considered this question has held that Rule 6(b) may be used only to extend time limits imposed by the court itself or by other Federal Rules, but not by statute.” 637 F.3d 365, 368 (D.C.

2018We recognize that the court did not defer its decision in the exact terms provided in subsection 11(e)(4), but the court suggested that it had not yet decided whether to accept the agreement, and it informed defendant that he could still withdraw his plea. 162 Vt. at 299 -300 , 648 A.2d at 636 (citation omitted).

2018We recognize that the court did not defer its decision in the exact terms provided in subsection 11(e)(4), but the court suggested that it had not yet decided whether to accept the agreement, and it informed defendant that he could still withdraw his plea. 162 Vt. at 299 -300 , 648 A.2d at 636 (citation omitted).