76 Vermont opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2026 16 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Aita Gurunggreen2 sentences2024An abuse of discretion is established where “an agency has declined to exercise its discretion or has done so on untenable or unreasonable grounds.” In re Joyce, 2018 VT 90, ¶ 12 , 208 Vt. 226 , 232 (internal quotation omitted); see State v. Gurung, 2020 VT 108, ¶ 36 , 214 Vt. 17 , 31. 2024An abuse of discretion is 5 established where “an agency has declined to exercise its discretion or has done so on untenable or unreasonable grounds.” In re Joyce, 2018 VT 90, ¶ 12 , 208 Vt. 226 , 232 (internal quotation omitted); see State v. Gurung, 2020 VT 108, ¶ 36 , 214 Vt. 17 , 31. | 4 | 4 |
Turner v. Roman Catholic Diocesegreen2 sentences2024Diocese, 2009 VT 101, ¶ 14 , 186 Vt. 396, 408 (“Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court….”). 2024Diocese, 2009 VT 101, ¶ 14 , 186 Vt. 396, 408 (“Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court….”). | 4 | 4 |
Vermont National Bank v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2018Nat'l Bank v. Clark , 156 Vt. 143 , 145, 588 A.2d 621 , 622 (1991) ). 2018Nat'l Bank v. Clark , 156 Vt. 143 , 145, 588 A.2d 621 , 622 (1991) ). | 3 | 4 |
Crosby v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.green2 sentences2011Tea Co., 143 Vt. 537, 539 , 468 A.2d 567, 568 (1983) (per curiam) (affirming court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider summary judgment ruling using an abuse-of-discretion standard). 2011Tea Co., 143 Vt. 537, 539 , 468 A.2d 567, 568 (1983) (per curiam) (affirming court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider summary judgment ruling using an abuse-of-discretion standard). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Snidegreen2 sentences2025Id. 2013 VT 81, ¶ 9 , 194 Vt. at 551 ; see State v. Snide, 144 Vt. 436, 440 (1984) (dismissal under Vt. 1995In 1989, the following sentence was added to V.R.Cr.E 48(b): “Unless the court directs that the dismissal is with prejudice, the dismissal shall be without prejudice.” The State reasons as follows in arguing that we should not apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing trial court decisions to dismiss criminal prosecutions in furtherance of justice: (1) we have applied an abuse-of-discretion standard in the past when reviewing Rule 48 dismissals, see State v. Snide, 144 Vt. 486 , 440, 479 A.2d 139, 142 (1984), but only for want of prosecution, and only before the 1989 amendment to Rule | 2 | 2 |
State v. Richardsgreen2 sentences2020Under this abuse-of-discretion standard, we “will not readily overturn the trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial.” State v. Richards, 144 Vt. 16, 20-21 , 470 A.2d 1187, 1190 (1983). “[A] claim of error can be supported only where the trial’s court discretion was either totally withheld, or exercised on clearly untenable or unreasonable grounds.” Messier, 2005 VT 98, ¶ 15 . ¶ 25. 2020Under this abuse-of-discretion standard, we “will not readily overturn the trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial.” State v. Richards, 144 Vt. 16, 20-21 , 470 A.2d 1187, 1190 (1983). “[A] claim of error can be supported only where the trial’s court discretion was either totally withheld, or exercised on clearly untenable or unreasonable grounds.” Messier, 2005 VT 98, ¶ 15 . ¶ 25. | 2 | 2 |
Herald Ass'n, Inc. v. Deangreen2 sentences2007When reviewing for abuse of discretion, we must determine whether the court, and BHA, “failed to exercise . . . discretion altogether or exercised it for reasons that are clearly untenable or unreasonable.” Herald Ass’n v. Dean, 174 Vt. 350, 360 , 816 A.2d 469, 478 (2002). 2007When reviewing for abuse of discretion, we must determine whether the court, and BHA, “failed to exercise . . . discretion altogether or exercised it for reasons that are clearly untenable or unreasonable.” Herald Ass’n v. Dean, 174 Vt. 350, 360 , 816 A.2d 469, 478 (2002). | 2 | 2 |
Bevins v. Kinggreen2 sentences2006Bevins v. King, 143 Vt. 252, 254-55 , 465 A.2d 282, 283 (1983). 2006Bevins v. King, 143 Vt. 252, 254-55 , 465 A.2d 282, 283 (1983). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Carteegreen2 sentences2002See State v. Cartee, 161 Vt. 73, 75 , 632 A.2d 1108, 1110 (1993). 2002See State v. Cartee, 161 Vt. 73, 75 , 632 A.2d 1108, 1110 (1993). | 2 | 2 |
Quenneville v. Buttolphgreen2 sentences2024“A trial court’s discretionary rulings are examined under an abuse of discretion standard of review, which requires a showing that the trial court has withheld its discretion entirely or that it was exercised for clearly untenable reasons or to a clearly untenable extent.” Quenneville v. Buttolph, 2003 VT 82, ¶ 11 , 175 Vt. 444 , 833 A.2d 1263 (quotation omitted). 2024“A trial court’s discretionary rulings are examined under an abuse of discretion standard of review, which requires a showing that the trial court has withheld its discretion entirely or that it was exercised for clearly untenable reasons or to a clearly untenable extent.” Quenneville v. Buttolph, 2003 VT 82, ¶ 11 , 175 Vt. 444 , 833 A.2d 1263 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 4 |
HSBC Bank USA N.A. (Jeffrey C. Riley, Appellant) v. Scott A. McAllister and Eddy Muldergreen2 sentences2022We examine a trial court’s discretionary rulings using “an abuse of discretion standard of review, which requires a showing that the trial court has withheld its discretion entirely or that it was exercised for clearly untenable reasons or to a clearly untenable extent.” HSBC Bank, 2018 VT 9, ¶ 8 (quotation omitted). “[A] trial court fails to exercise its discretion where it does not consider factors relevant to the statutorily mandated procedural requirements of a foreclosure sale, any requirements set out in the foreclosure judgment, and other factors implicating the fairness or integrity of 2019However, we review discretionary decisions of trial courts “under an abuse of discretion standard of review.” HSBC Bank USA N.A. v. McAllister, 2018 VT 9, ¶ 8 , 206 Vt. 445 , 182 A.3d 593 . | 1 | 2 |
Gregory v. Poulin Auto Sales, Inc.green1 sentence2026P'ship v. Town of Chelsea, 142 Vt. 538, 540 (1983); see also Gregory v. Poulin Auto Sales, Inc., 2012 VT 28 , § 17 Gmem.) (noting that a motion under either Rules 59 or 60 is addressed to the trial court's discretion); see also Kneebinding, Inc., 2018VT 101, at J 34 (reviewing a motion to reconsider under an abuse of discretion standard). | 1 | 1 |
Chelsea Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Chelseagreen1 sentence2026P'ship v. Town of Chelsea, 142 Vt. 538, 540 (1983); see also Gregory v. Poulin Auto Sales, Inc., 2012 VT 28 , § 17 Gmem.) (noting that a motion under either Rules 59 or 60 is addressed to the trial court's discretion); see also Kneebinding, Inc., 2018VT 101, at J 34 (reviewing a motion to reconsider under an abuse of discretion standard). | 1 | 1 |
Roy H.A. Watson III v. The Village at Northshore I Association, Inc.green1 sentence2025See Watson, 2018 VT 8, ¶ 80 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sauvegreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 143 (1995) (concluding that Court would review trial court’s decision regarding whether to dismiss case in furtherance of justice for abuse of discretion given that “trial court is in a better position to weigh the relevant factors”). | 1 | 1 |
Guiel v. Allstate Insurancegreen2 sentences2025See Ovitt, 2009 VT 26, ¶ 5 ; see also Guiel, 170 Vt. at 470-72 , 756 A.2d at 782-83 . 2025See Ovitt, 2009 VT 26, ¶ 5 ; see also Guiel, 170 Vt. at 470-72 , 756 A.2d at 782-83 . | 1 | 1 |
Ovitt v. American Home Assurance Co.green1 sentence2025See Ovitt, 2009 VT 26, ¶ 5 ; see also Guiel, 170 Vt. at 470-72 , 756 A.2d at 782-83 . | 1 | 1 |
In re C.L.S., Juvenilegreen1 sentence2024See V.R.A.P. 28(a)(4)(B) (providing that appellant’s principal brief must include “a concise statement of the applicable standard of review” for each issue presented); In re C.L.S., 2021 VT 25, ¶ 9 (noting that we “apply a deferential standard of review to a court’s exercise of its discretion under Rule 60(b)(6)”). | 1 | 1 |
| Taranjit Kaur MAGHU v. Prabhjot SINGH Prabhjot Singh v. Taranjit Kaur Maghugreen | 1 | 1 |
| Unifund CCR Partners v. Daniel Zimmergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lumumbagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mosesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pelleringreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rocissono v. Spykesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Napier v. Texasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Frederick Lashley v. Paul K. Delogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hamlingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hoague v. Cotagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Corlissgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hunt v. Village of Bristolgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Johnnie L. Whitegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ketchum v. Town of Dorsetgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Clapp v. Clappgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Langlois v. Department of Employment & Traininggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Luce v. Cushinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Unwingreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lavalettegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Roygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Chamberlaingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Richard H. Joyce
green
2 sentences2024An abuse of discretion is established where “an agency has declined to exercise its discretion or has done so on untenable or unreasonable grounds.” In re Joyce, 2018 VT 90, ¶ 12 , 208 Vt. 226 , 232 (internal quotation omitted); see State v. Gurung, 2020 VT 108, ¶ 36 , 214 Vt. 17 , 31. 2024An abuse of discretion is 5 established where “an agency has declined to exercise its discretion or has done so on untenable or unreasonable grounds.” In re Joyce, 2018 VT 90, ¶ 12 , 208 Vt. 226 , 232 (internal quotation omitted); see State v. Gurung, 2020 VT 108, ¶ 36 , 214 Vt. 17 , 31. | 4 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Billy Joe Putnam
green
2 sentences2016If defendant has preserved an objection in the trial court, “we review the imposition of particular probation conditions . . . under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Putnam, 2015 VT 113, ¶ 44 , 200 Vt. 257 , 130 A.3d 836 (quotation omitted). 2016If defendant has preserved an objection in the trial court, “we review the imposition of particular probation conditions . . . under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Putnam, 2015 VT 113, ¶ 44 , 200 Vt. 257 , 130 A.3d 836 (quotation omitted). | 3 | 2015–2024 |
State v. Herrick
green
2 sentences2020“If an irregularity is shown . . . the opposing party must show that the irregularity in fact had no effect on the jury.” State v. Herrick, 2011 VT 94, ¶ 13 , 190 Vt. 292 , 30 A.3d 1285 . 2020“If an irregularity is shown . . . the opposing party must show that the irregularity in fact had no effect on the jury.” State v. Herrick, 2011 VT 94, ¶ 13 , 190 Vt. 292 , 30 A.3d 1285 . | 3 | 2019–2020 |
State v. Jeremy R. Amidon
green
2 sentences2020Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, a defendant seeking “a mistrial based on alleged jury taint must show that an irregularity—i.e., anything creating any suspicion of 8 extraneous influences—had the capacity to influence jury deliberations.” State v. Amidon, 2018 VT 99, ¶¶ 14-15 , 208 Vt. 360 , 198 A.3d 27 (quotation omitted). 2020Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, a defendant seeking “a mistrial based on alleged jury taint must show that an irregularity—i.e., anything creating any suspicion of 8 extraneous influences—had the capacity to influence jury deliberations.” State v. Amidon, 2018 VT 99, ¶¶ 14-15 , 208 Vt. 360 , 198 A.3d 27 (quotation omitted). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Yoh
green
2 sentences2020The “more concrete federal plain- error test” is also a helpful “guide for applying our own plain-error standard.” State v. Yoh, 2006 VT 49A, ¶¶ 39-40, 180 Vt. 317 , 910 A.2d 853 . ¶ 24. 2020The “more concrete federal plain- error test” is also a helpful “guide for applying our own plain-error standard.” State v. Yoh, 2006 VT 49A, ¶¶ 39-40, 180 Vt. 317 , 910 A.2d 853 . ¶ 24. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Jeffrey M. Ray
green
2 sentences2020In determining whether plain error occurred, we are guided by “cases where we have applied the abuse-of-discretion standard.” See State v. Ray, 2019 VT 51, ¶ 9 , ___ Vt. ___, 216 A.3d 1274 . 2020In determining whether plain error occurred, we are guided by “cases where we have applied the abuse-of-discretion standard.” See State v. Ray, 2019 VT 51, ¶ 9 , ___ Vt. ___, 216 A.3d 1274 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Messier
green
2 sentences2020Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, “a claim of error can be supported only where the trial’s court discretion was either totally withheld, or exercised on clearly untenable or unreasonable grounds.” State v. Messier, 2005 VT 98, ¶ 15 , 178 Vt. 412 , 885 A.2d 1193 . ¶ 13. 2020Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, “a claim of error can be supported only where the trial’s court discretion was either totally withheld, or exercised on clearly untenable or unreasonable grounds.” State v. Messier, 2005 VT 98, ¶ 15 , 178 Vt. 412 , 885 A.2d 1193 . ¶ 13. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
985 Associates, Ltd. v. Daewoo Electronics America, Inc.
green
1 sentence2026A motion to exclude expert testimony is similarly vested in the discretion of the trial court. 985 Associates, Ltd. v. Daewoo Electronics America, Inc., 2008 VT 14 , 1 9. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Ying Ji v. Heide
green
2 sentences2025Id. 2013 VT 81, ¶ 9 , 194 Vt. at 551 ; see State v. Snide, 144 Vt. 436, 440 (1984) (dismissal under Vt. 2025Id. 2013 VT 81, ¶ 9 , 194 Vt. at 551 ; see State v. Snide, 144 Vt. 436, 440 (1984) (dismissal under Vt. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Raynes v. Rogers
green
1 sentence2024Cf. Evans v. Cote, 2014 VT 104, ¶ 8 , 197 Vt. 523 (in reviewing “grant of injunction under an abuse-of-discretion standard, . . . [Supreme Court] will not reverse unless the findings are not supported by the evidence and the [lower] court's decision lacks any legal grounds to Decision on Appeal Page 2 of 4 24-CV-04071 Cadylynn Reason v Department of Corrections justify the result”); Raynes v. Rogers, 2008 Vt 52, ¶ 9, 183 Vt. 513 (in reviewing grant of RFA for abuse of discretion, court will uphold “findings if supported by the evidence and [] conclusions if supported by the findings”). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Evans v. Cote
green
2 sentences2024Cf. Evans v. Cote, 2014 VT 104, ¶ 8 , 197 Vt. 523 (in reviewing “grant of injunction under an abuse-of-discretion standard, . . . [Supreme Court] will not reverse unless the findings are not supported by the evidence and the [lower] court's decision lacks any legal grounds to Decision on Appeal Page 2 of 4 24-CV-04071 Cadylynn Reason v Department of Corrections justify the result”); Raynes v. Rogers, 2008 Vt 52, ¶ 9, 183 Vt. 513 (in reviewing grant of RFA for abuse of discretion, court will uphold “findings if supported by the evidence and [] conclusions if supported by the findings”). 2024Cf. Evans v. Cote, 2014 VT 104, ¶ 8 , 197 Vt. 523 (in reviewing “grant of injunction under an abuse-of-discretion standard, . . . [Supreme Court] will not reverse unless the findings are not supported by the evidence and the [lower] court's decision lacks any legal grounds to Decision on Appeal Page 2 of 4 24-CV-04071 Cadylynn Reason v Department of Corrections justify the result”); Raynes v. Rogers, 2008 Vt 52, ¶ 9, 183 Vt. 513 (in reviewing grant of RFA for abuse of discretion, court will uphold “findings if supported by the evidence and [] conclusions if supported by the findings”). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re B.B., Juvenile
neutral
1 sentence2023In In re B.B., 2019 VT 86, ¶ 4 , 211 Vt. 272 , 224 A.3d 1149 , the youth appealed the trial court’s denial of youthful-offender status on the basis that the youth had not met his burden of demonstrating that public safety would be protected if he were granted youthful-offender status. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Bank of America, N.A. v. Seamus P. O'Kelly, Jennifer S. O'Kelly and State of Vermont Department of Taxes and Sandra J. Lockerby neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Gibney green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Bacon green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Marconi Wireless Co. v. United States green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Cheryl J. Brown v. State of Vermont green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Matthew Webster green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Sanders v. United States green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Remes v. Nordic Group, Inc. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| In Re MacIntyre Fuels, Inc. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| In re Petition of Rutland Renewable Energy, LLC for Certificate of Public Good Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248 green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Willy Levitt green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Shahi v. Madden green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Shattuck v. Peck green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Casey neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Irving Oil Corp. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Barrows green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Voorheis green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Kevin Pappas v. Middle Earth Condominium Association Castle Rock Management Company green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Wade v. Wade green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Willey v. Willey green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. French green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Keith green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Chamberlin neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.