Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Vermont opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Varnum v. Varnumgreen2 sentences2023Accordingly, our review is only for plain error, which in civil cases occurs “only in limited circumstances, i.e., when an appellant raises a claim of deprivation of fundamental rights.” Pcolar v. Casella Waste Sys., Inc., 2012 VT 58, ¶ 21 , 192 Vt. 343 , 59 A.3d 702 (quotation omitted); see Varnum v. Varnum, 155 Vt. 376, 383 , 586 A.2d 1107, 1111 (1990) (holding that in child-custody context, mother’s unpreserved issue only reviewed for “fundamental miscarriage of justice” because of children’s “weighty interests” in stability and permanency). 4 ¶ 11. 2023Accordingly, our review is only for plain error, which in civil cases occurs “only in limited circumstances, i.e., when an appellant raises a claim of deprivation of fundamental rights.” Pcolar v. Casella Waste Sys., Inc., 2012 VT 58, ¶ 21 , 192 Vt. 343 , 59 A.3d 702 (quotation omitted); see Varnum v. Varnum, 155 Vt. 376, 383 , 586 A.2d 1107, 1111 (1990) (holding that in child-custody context, mother’s unpreserved issue only reviewed for “fundamental miscarriage of justice” because of children’s “weighty interests” in stability and permanency). 4 ¶ 11. | 4 | 4 |
Follo v. Florindogreen2 sentences2024We will consider a plain-error argument in a civil case “only in limited circumstances, i.e., when an appellant raises a claim of depravation of fundamental rights, or when a liberty interest is at stake in a quasi-criminal or hybrid civil-criminal probation hearing.” Follo v. Florindo, 2009 VT 11, ¶ 16 , 185 Vt. 390 , 970 A.2d 1230 (citation omitted). 2024We will consider a plain-error argument in a civil case “only in limited circumstances, i.e., when an appellant raises a claim of depravation of fundamental rights, or when a liberty interest is at stake in a quasi-criminal or hybrid civil-criminal probation hearing.” Follo v. Florindo, 2009 VT 11, ¶ 16 , 185 Vt. 390 , 970 A.2d 1230 (citation omitted). | 1 | 7 |
LeBlanc v. LeBlancgreen2 sentences2025Id. ¶ 16 (citing Varnum v. Varnum, 155 Vt. 376, 382-87 , 586 A.2d 1107, 1110-13 (1990) (applying plain-error review where mother claimed violations of her federal and state constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion in hearing concerning award of parental rights and responsibilities) and State v. Decoteau, 2007 VT 94, ¶ 11 , 182 Vt. 433 ); see also LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 2014 VT 65, ¶ 19 , 197 Vt. 17 (discussing plain-error standard in civil case); Pcolar v. Casella Waste Sys., Inc., 2012 VT 58, ¶ 21 , 192 Vt. 343 (same). 2025Id. ¶ 16 (citing Varnum v. Varnum, 155 Vt. 376, 382-87 , 586 A.2d 1107, 1110-13 (1990) (applying plain-error review where mother claimed violations of her federal and state constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion in hearing concerning award of parental rights and responsibilities) and State v. Decoteau, 2007 VT 94, ¶ 11 , 182 Vt. 433 ); see also LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 2014 VT 65, ¶ 19 , 197 Vt. 17 (discussing plain-error standard in civil case); Pcolar v. Casella Waste Sys., Inc., 2012 VT 58, ¶ 21 , 192 Vt. 343 (same). | 1 | 1 |
Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkinsgreen1 sentence2020Even construing husband’s claim as asserting that he was deprived of fundamental rights, he fails to show a “fundamental miscarriage of justice that we cannot overlook.” See Miller- Jenkins, 2010 VT 98, ¶ 31 (quotation omitted) (recognizing that “[i]n civil cases, this Court generally does not review unpreserved constitutional claims, except in limited circumstances, i.e., when an appellant raises a claim of deprivation of fundamental rights” and in those cases, “we ask only whether there has been a fundamental miscarriage of justice that we cannot overlook” (quotation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2013This case does not present such circumstances. 6 Plaintiffs assert that “[a]ny question of bias must be resolved against the juror,” citing United States v. Mitchell, 568 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pcolar v. Casella Waste Systems and Smith
green
2 sentences2023Accordingly, our review is only for plain error, which in civil cases occurs “only in limited circumstances, i.e., when an appellant raises a claim of deprivation of fundamental rights.” Pcolar v. Casella Waste Sys., Inc., 2012 VT 58, ¶ 21 , 192 Vt. 343 , 59 A.3d 702 (quotation omitted); see Varnum v. Varnum, 155 Vt. 376, 383 , 586 A.2d 1107, 1111 (1990) (holding that in child-custody context, mother’s unpreserved issue only reviewed for “fundamental miscarriage of justice” because of children’s “weighty interests” in stability and permanency). 4 ¶ 11. 2023Accordingly, our review is only for plain error, which in civil cases occurs “only in limited circumstances, i.e., when an appellant raises a claim of deprivation of fundamental rights.” Pcolar v. Casella Waste Sys., Inc., 2012 VT 58, ¶ 21 , 192 Vt. 343 , 59 A.3d 702 (quotation omitted); see Varnum v. Varnum, 155 Vt. 376, 383 , 586 A.2d 1107, 1111 (1990) (holding that in child-custody context, mother’s unpreserved issue only reviewed for “fundamental miscarriage of justice” because of children’s “weighty interests” in stability and permanency). 4 ¶ 11. | 4 | 2012–2025 |
State v. Decoteau
green
2 sentences2009While we do not read Rule 51 as absolutely precluding *400 plain-error review, this Court considers plain error in civil cases only in limited circumstances, i.e., when an appellant raises a claim of deprivation of fundamental rights, Varnum v. Vamum, 155 Vt. 376, 382-87 , 586 A.2d 1107, 1110-13 (1990) (applying plain-error review where mother claimed violations of her federal and state constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion in parental rights-and-responsibilities proceeding), or when a liberty interest is at stake in a quasi-criminal or hybrid civil-criminal probation hearing, 2009While we do not read Rule 51 as absolutely precluding *400 plain-error review, this Court considers plain error in civil cases only in limited circumstances, i.e., when an appellant raises a claim of deprivation of fundamental rights, Varnum v. Vamum, 155 Vt. 376, 382-87 , 586 A.2d 1107, 1110-13 (1990) (applying plain-error review where mother claimed violations of her federal and state constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion in parental rights-and-responsibilities proceeding), or when a liberty interest is at stake in a quasi-criminal or hybrid civil-criminal probation hearing, | 2 | 2009–2025 |
State v. Decoteau
green
2 sentences2025Id. ¶ 16 (citing Varnum v. Varnum, 155 Vt. 376, 382-87 , 586 A.2d 1107, 1110-13 (1990) (applying plain-error review where mother claimed violations of her federal and state constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion in hearing concerning award of parental rights and responsibilities) and State v. Decoteau, 2007 VT 94, ¶ 11 , 182 Vt. 433 ); see also LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 2014 VT 65, ¶ 19 , 197 Vt. 17 (discussing plain-error standard in civil case); Pcolar v. Casella Waste Sys., Inc., 2012 VT 58, ¶ 21 , 192 Vt. 343 (same). 2009While we do not read Rule 51 as absolutely precluding *400 plain-error review, this Court considers plain error in civil cases only in limited circumstances, i.e., when an appellant raises a claim of deprivation of fundamental rights, Varnum v. Vamum, 155 Vt. 376, 382-87 , 586 A.2d 1107, 1110-13 (1990) (applying plain-error review where mother claimed violations of her federal and state constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion in parental rights-and-responsibilities proceeding), or when a liberty interest is at stake in a quasi-criminal or hybrid civil-criminal probation hearing, | 2 | 2009–2025 |
Hanson-Metayer v. Hanson-Metayer
green
2 sentences2014We recognize plain error in civil cases “only in limited circumstances, i.e., when an appellant raises a claim of deprivation of fundamental rights, or when a liberty interest is at stake in a quasi-criminal or hybrid civil-criminal probation hearing.” Hanson-Metayer v. HansonMetayer, 2013 VT 29, ¶ 40 , 193 Vt. 490 , 70 A.3d 1036 (quotation *24 omitted). 2014We recognize plain error in civil cases “only in limited circumstances, i.e., when an appellant raises a claim of deprivation of fundamental rights, or when a liberty interest is at stake in a quasi-criminal or hybrid civil-criminal probation hearing.” Hanson-Metayer v. HansonMetayer, 2013 VT 29, ¶ 40 , 193 Vt. 490 , 70 A.3d 1036 (quotation *24 omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.