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.
9 Vermont opinions name it 2 courts 1938–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Monahan v. GMAC Mortgage Corp.green2 sentences2017Corp., 2005 VT 110, ¶ 54, n.5 , 179 Vt. 167 (emphasis in original); Harsch Properties, Inc. v. Nicholas, 2007 VT 70, ¶ 14 , 182 Vt. 196 (“A breach for violation of the implied covenant may form a separate cause of action than for breach of contract, as long as the counts are based on different conduct.”); Ferrisburgh Realty Inv’rs v. Schumacher, 2010 VT 6, ¶ 26 , 187 Vt. 309 (affirming trial court’s elimination of jury award to plaintiff on breach of covenant of good faith claim where plaintiff “identifie[d] no conduct distinct from that supporting the breach of contract claim” but rather ”foc 2017Corp., 2005 VT 110, ¶ 54, n.5 , 179 Vt. 167 (emphasis in original); Harsch Properties, Inc. v. Nicholas, 2007 VT 70, ¶ 14 , 182 Vt. 196 (“A breach for violation of the implied covenant may form a separate cause of action than for breach of contract, as long as the counts are based on different conduct.”); Ferrisburgh Realty Inv’rs v. Schumacher, 2010 VT 6, ¶ 26 , 187 Vt. 309 (affirming trial court’s elimination of jury award to plaintiff on breach of covenant of good faith claim where plaintiff “identifie[d] no conduct distinct from that supporting the breach of contract claim” but rather ”foc | 1 | 2 |
Pan-Am Tobacco v. Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2024Ct. App. 2022) (“When the State contracts with a private entity, then ‘the defense of sovereign immunity will not protect the state from action arising from the state’s breach of that claim.’”) (quoting Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dep’t of Corr., 471 So.2d 4, 5 (Fla. 1984)). | 1 | 1 |
Estella McClellan, Administrator of the Estate of Betty Jo McClellan v. Jeffrey E. Haddock, M.D. and Thomas Chittenden Health Center, PLCgreen2 sentences2018See McClellan v. Haddock , 2017 VT 13 , ¶27, 204 Vt. 252 , 166 A.3d 579 . 2 In McClellan , the plaintiff provided a preliminary expert opinion to the defendants, but the trial court found that it could not substitute for the certificate of merit because it failed to describe the standard of care or to opine that the alleged breach of that standard caused the plaintiff's injury, as required by § 1042(a). 2018See McClellan v. Haddock , 2017 VT 13 , ¶27, 204 Vt. 252 , 166 A.3d 579 . 2 In McClellan , the plaintiff provided a preliminary expert opinion to the defendants, but the trial court found that it could not substitute for the certificate of merit because it failed to describe the standard of care or to opine that the alleged breach of that standard caused the plaintiff's injury, as required by § 1042(a). | 1 | 1 |
American Fidelity Co. v. Kerrgreen2 sentences1997See American Fidelity Co. v. Kerr, 138 Vt. 359, 362 , 416 A.2d 163, 165 (1980) (insurer “has the burden to show the lack of cooperation of its insured . . . and the actual prejudice resulting therefrom”). 1997See American Fidelity Co. v. Kerr, 138 Vt. 359, 362 , 416 A.2d 163, 165 (1980) (insurer “has the burden to show the lack of cooperation of its insured . . . and the actual prejudice resulting therefrom”). | 1 | 1 |
Deyo v. Kinleygreen2 sentences1994Deyo v. Kinley, 152 Vt. 196, 209 , 565 A.2d 1286, 1294 (1989). 1994Deyo v. Kinley, 152 Vt. 196, 209 , 565 A.2d 1286, 1294 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harsch Properties, Inc. v. Nicholas
green
2 sentences2017Corp., 2005 VT 110, ¶ 54, n.5 , 179 Vt. 167 (emphasis in original); Harsch Properties, Inc. v. Nicholas, 2007 VT 70, ¶ 14 , 182 Vt. 196 (“A breach for violation of the implied covenant may form a separate cause of action than for breach of contract, as long as the counts are based on different conduct.”); Ferrisburgh Realty Inv’rs v. Schumacher, 2010 VT 6, ¶ 26 , 187 Vt. 309 (affirming trial court’s elimination of jury award to plaintiff on breach of covenant of good faith claim where plaintiff “identifie[d] no conduct distinct from that supporting the breach of contract claim” but rather ”foc 2017Corp., 2005 VT 110, ¶ 54, n.5 , 179 Vt. 167 (emphasis in original); Harsch Properties, Inc. v. Nicholas, 2007 VT 70, ¶ 14 , 182 Vt. 196 (“A breach for violation of the implied covenant may form a separate cause of action than for breach of contract, as long as the counts are based on different conduct.”); Ferrisburgh Realty Inv’rs v. Schumacher, 2010 VT 6, ¶ 26 , 187 Vt. 309 (affirming trial court’s elimination of jury award to plaintiff on breach of covenant of good faith claim where plaintiff “identifie[d] no conduct distinct from that supporting the breach of contract claim” but rather ”foc | 3 | 2010–2024 |
Ferrisburgh Realty Investors v. Schumacher
green
2 sentences2017Corp., 2005 VT 110, ¶ 54, n.5 , 179 Vt. 167 (emphasis in original); Harsch Properties, Inc. v. Nicholas, 2007 VT 70, ¶ 14 , 182 Vt. 196 (“A breach for violation of the implied covenant may form a separate cause of action than for breach of contract, as long as the counts are based on different conduct.”); Ferrisburgh Realty Inv’rs v. Schumacher, 2010 VT 6, ¶ 26 , 187 Vt. 309 (affirming trial court’s elimination of jury award to plaintiff on breach of covenant of good faith claim where plaintiff “identifie[d] no conduct distinct from that supporting the breach of contract claim” but rather ”foc 2017Corp., 2005 VT 110, ¶ 54, n.5 , 179 Vt. 167 (emphasis in original); Harsch Properties, Inc. v. Nicholas, 2007 VT 70, ¶ 14 , 182 Vt. 196 (“A breach for violation of the implied covenant may form a separate cause of action than for breach of contract, as long as the counts are based on different conduct.”); Ferrisburgh Realty Inv’rs v. Schumacher, 2010 VT 6, ¶ 26 , 187 Vt. 309 (affirming trial court’s elimination of jury award to plaintiff on breach of covenant of good faith claim where plaintiff “identifie[d] no conduct distinct from that supporting the breach of contract claim” but rather ”foc | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Francis v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.
green
2 sentences1938The next question to be considered is whether the breach of the clause in the policy which required notice of the accident to be given by or on behalf of the insured as soon as was reasonably possible thereafter will bar the plaintiff’s recovery, in view of the failure of the defendant to claim resulting prejudice to its rights, In arguing this point the plaintiff’s counsel, while admitting a conflict of authority, leans heavily upon Francis v. London Guarantee and Accident Co., 100 Vt. 425 , 138 Atl. 780 . 1938The next question to be considered is whether the breach of the clause in the policy which required notice of the accident to be given by or on behalf of the insured as soon as was reasonably possible thereafter will bar the plaintiff’s recovery, in view of the failure of the defendant to claim resulting prejudice to its rights, In arguing this point the plaintiff’s counsel, while admitting a conflict of authority, leans heavily upon Francis v. London Guarantee and Accident Co., 100 Vt. 425 , 138 Atl. 780 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.