9 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Soon K. Kwon v. Eric Edson and Dina Wellgreen1 sentence2020See Kwon v. Edson, 2019 VT 59, ¶ 30 , __ Vt. __, 217 A.3d 935 (identifying aggrieved party’s failure to object at trial to testimony about issue not expressly pled as factor supporting conclusion that matter was tried by consent). | 1 | 1 |
In re J.T.green1 sentence2012Following the contested hearing in this case, the court terminated the parental rights of N.L.’s father, who has not appealed that order. 2 J.T., 166 Vt. 173, 177, 179 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Robertsgreen2 sentences1988“In a contested hearing for absolute divorce where the parties are not seeking to enforce a prior stipulation ... the court is not bound by the stipulation but has the discretion to order a new disposition.” Roberts v. Roberts, 146 Vt. 498, 500 , 505 A.2d 676, 678 (1986). 1988“In a contested hearing for absolute divorce where the parties are not seeking to enforce a prior stipulation ... the court is not bound by the stipulation but has the discretion to order a new disposition.” Roberts v. Roberts, 146 Vt. 498, 500 , 505 A.2d 676, 678 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Rudin v. Rudingreen2 sentences1986See Rudin v. Rudin, 132 Vt. 30, 33 , 312 A.2d 736, 738 (1973). 1986See Rudin v. Rudin, 132 Vt. 30, 33 , 312 A.2d 736, 738 (1973). | 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 the Suspension or Revocation of the License to Practice as a Dentist
green
1 sentence2024In Bruteyn, Bruteyn argued the State Dental and Examining Board violated his rights to a fair hearing because the prosecuting attorney in the contested hearing also advised the Board “before, during, and after the hearing.” 380 A.2d at 499 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Driscoll
green
2 sentences2017For example, the restitution statute does not allow a defendant to request a jury determination of the amount of restitution; instead, the court has discretion in determining the amount of restitution for losses that need only be estimated to a reasonable certainty. 13 V.S.A. § 7043(d)(1), (g)(1) (referring to "sufficient documentation of the material loss" and referencing trial court's discretion *1101 by requiring that "[w]hen restitution is requested but not ordered, the court shall set forth on the record its reasons for not ordering restitution"); State v. Driscoll , 2008 VT 101 , ¶ 8, 18 2017For example, the restitution statute does not allow a defendant to request a jury determination of the amount of restitution; instead, the court has discretion in determining the amount of restitution for losses that need only be estimated to a reasonable certainty. 13 V.S.A. § 7043(d)(1), (g)(1) (referring to "sufficient documentation of the material loss" and referencing trial court's discretion *1101 by requiring that "[w]hen restitution is requested but not ordered, the court shall set forth on the record its reasons for not ordering restitution"); State v. Driscoll , 2008 VT 101 , ¶ 8, 18 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hersch v. State
green
2 sentences2016Hersch, 562 A.2d at 1259 . 2016Hersch, 562 A.2d at 1259 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Johnston v. Wilkins
green
2 sentences2013Johnston, 2003 VT 56, ¶ 8 . ¶ 30. 2013Johnston , 2003 VT 56, ¶ 8 . ¶ 30. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Withrow v. Larkin
green
1 sentence2006Odessa provides no basis for its allegation that the Board was prejudiced by its consideration of the settlement offer, nor has it shown that, by considering the offer, the Board was “disabled from hearing and deciding on the basis of the evidence to be presented at the contested hearing.” Larkin, 421 U.S. at 55 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.