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.
8 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Stanislawgreen2 sentences2012See State v. Stanislaw, 153 Vt. 517, 528 (1990) (“Even when the defendant asserts a violation of constitutional rights, failure to promptly raise the issue before the trial court results in a waiver.”). 1 The State asserts that the argument was not raised below and therefore not properly preserved for review on appeal. 2009“Even when the defendant asserts a violation of constitutional rights, failure to promptly raise the issue before the trial court results in a waiver.” State v. Stanislaw, 153 Vt. 517, 528 , 573 A.2d 286, 292 (1990); see State v. Wool, 162 Vt. 342, 346 , 648 A.2d 655, 658 (1994). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Hinchliffegreen2 sentences2023See State v. Hinchliffe, 2009 VT 111, ¶ 31 , 186 Vt. 487 (“Even when the defendant asserts a violation of constitutional rights, failure to promptly raise the issue before the trial court results in a waiver.” (quotation omitted)). 2023See State v. Hinchliffe, 2009 VT 111, ¶ 31 , 186 Vt. 487 (“Even when the defendant asserts a violation of constitutional rights, failure to promptly raise the issue before the trial court results in a waiver.” (quotation omitted)). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Gleasongreen2 sentences2015We have previously held that this policy applies in the context of probation hearings, “even when the defendant asserts a violation of consti *244 tutional rights.” State v. Gleason, 154 Vt. 205, 210-11 , 576 A.2d 1246, 1249 (1990). 2015We have previously held that this policy applies in the context of probation hearings, “even when the defendant asserts a violation of consti *244 tutional rights.” State v. Gleason, 154 Vt. 205, 210-11 , 576 A.2d 1246, 1249 (1990). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2018See State v. Johnson , 524 S.W.3d 505 , 511 (Mo. 2017) (explaining that court has discretion to reach challenges to constitutional facial validity of statute not raised below); Hill v. City of Urbana , 79 Ohio St.3d 130 , 679 N.E.2d 1109 , 1112 (1997) (stating that courts have discretion in implementing waiver doctrine to reach unpreserved claims). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woolgreen2 sentences2009“Even when the defendant asserts a violation of constitutional rights, failure to promptly raise the issue before the trial court results in a waiver.” State v. Stanislaw, 153 Vt. 517, 528 , 573 A.2d 286, 292 (1990); see State v. Wool, 162 Vt. 342, 346 , 648 A.2d 655, 658 (1994). 2009“Even when the defendant asserts a violation of constitutional rights, failure to promptly raise the issue before the trial court results in a waiver.” State v. Stanislaw, 153 Vt. 517, 528 , 573 A.2d 286, 292 (1990); see State v. Wool, 162 Vt. 342, 346 , 648 A.2d 655, 658 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. City of Urbana
green
2 sentences2018See State v. Johnson , 524 S.W.3d 505 , 511 (Mo. 2017) (explaining that court has discretion to reach challenges to constitutional facial validity of statute not raised below); Hill v. City of Urbana , 79 Ohio St.3d 130 , 679 N.E.2d 1109 , 1112 (1997) (stating that courts have discretion in implementing waiver doctrine to reach unpreserved claims). 2018See State v. Johnson , 524 S.W.3d 505 , 511 (Mo. 2017) (explaining that court has discretion to reach challenges to constitutional facial validity of statute not raised below); Hill v. City of Urbana , 79 Ohio St.3d 130 , 679 N.E.2d 1109 , 1112 (1997) (stating that courts have discretion in implementing waiver doctrine to reach unpreserved claims). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.