8 Vermont opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Town of South Hero v. Woodgreen2 sentences2021See Town of S. Hero v. Wood, 2006 VT 28, ¶ 17 , 179 Vt. 417, 425 (2006) (distinguishing between the “traveled way” of a road and the associated right-of-way). 2021See Town of S. Hero v. Wood, 2006 VT 28, ¶ 17 , 179 Vt. 417, 425 (2006) (distinguishing between the “traveled way” of a road and the associated right-of-way). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Kostenblattgreen1 sentence2010A motion to alter or amend, pursuant to V.R.C.P. 59(e), “allows the trial court to revise its initial judgment if necessary to relieve a party against the unjust operation of the record resulting from the mistake or inadvertence of the court and not the fault or neglect of a party.” Rubin v. Sterling Enters., Inc., 164 Vt. 582, 588 (1996) (citing In re Kostenblatt, 161 Vt. 292, 302 (1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Rubin v. Sterling Enterprises, Inc.green1 sentence2010A motion to alter or amend, pursuant to V.R.C.P. 59(e), “allows the trial court to revise its initial judgment if necessary to relieve a party against the unjust operation of the record resulting from the mistake or inadvertence of the court and not the fault or neglect of a party.” Rubin v. Sterling Enters., Inc., 164 Vt. 582, 588 (1996) (citing In re Kostenblatt, 161 Vt. 292, 302 (1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co. v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Hinesburg, 166 Vt. at 341 (“Injury in fact is defined as the invasion of a legally protected interest.” (quotations removed)). | 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 Wagner & Guay Permit (Mary Bourassa, Appellant)
green
1 sentence2024This general purpose statement of Chapter 117, requiring only that municipalities “take care to protect” constitutional property rights, by its plain language does not explicitly or implicitly 2 Neighbors’ motion attempts to distinguish Woodstock Cmty. Tr. and Marsh Inter Vivos Tr., as well as In re Wagner & Guay Permit, 2016 VT 96 , and argues that these cases are narrower in scope than the pending action. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Willis S. Sheldon, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Dezirae Sheldon v. Nicholas Ruggiero
green
2 sentences2024Neighbors claim there are more dogs than applicant admits. 3 Sheldon v. Ruggiero, 2018 VT 125, ¶ 14 , 209 Vt. 33 , 202 A.3d 241 (citing V.R.C.P. 56). 2024Neighbors claim there are more dogs than applicant admits. 3 Sheldon v. Ruggiero, 2018 VT 125, ¶ 14 , 209 Vt. 33 , 202 A.3d 241 (citing V.R.C.P. 56). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Andrew Wood v. Jeffrey Wallin and Michael Schirling
green
2 sentences2024When reviewing such a motion, we “regard as true all allegations of the nonmoving party supported by admissible evidence and give the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences.” Wood v. Wallin, 2024 VT 21, ¶ 8 , __ Vt. __, 316 A.3d 266 (quotation omitted). ¶ 7. 2024When reviewing such a motion, we “regard as true all allegations of the nonmoving party supported by admissible evidence and give the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences.” Wood v. Wallin, 2024 VT 21, ¶ 8 , __ Vt. __, 316 A.3d 266 (quotation omitted). ¶ 7. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Scott v. City of Newport
green
2 sentences2019Further, we cannot find support for Neighbors’ claim that the decisions by this Court that were not appealed do not qualify as final judgments for preclusion purposes. 5 See Scott v. City of Newport, 2004 VT 64, ¶ 12 , 177 Vt. 491 (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 13, cmts. a, g) (discussing factors to be weighed when considering whether a judgment is final). 2019Further, we cannot find support for Neighbors’ claim that the decisions by this Court that were not appealed do not qualify as final judgments for preclusion purposes. 5 See Scott v. City of Newport, 2004 VT 64, ¶ 12 , 177 Vt. 491 (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 13, cmts. a, g) (discussing factors to be weighed when considering whether a judgment is final). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re Hinesburg Hannaford Act 250 Permit
green
1 sentence2019Additionally, Neighbors contend that the Environmental Division ignored this Court’s precedent in In re Hinesburg Hannaford by failing to make independent findings regarding the functionality of the wet suppression system, undermining its reliance on the wet suppression system to mitigate the project’s dust impacts. 2017 VT 106 , 206 Vt. 118 , 179 A.3d 727 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re Application of Lathrop Limited Partnership I, II and III
green
2 sentences2019Partnership I (Lathrop), 2015 VT 49 , 199 Vt. 19 , 121 A.3d 630 , and the Environmental Board’s ruling in In re OMYA, Inc. when assessing the project’s traffic and noise impacts. 2019Partnership I (Lathrop), 2015 VT 49 , 199 Vt. 19 , 121 A.3d 630 , and the Environmental Board’s ruling in In re OMYA, Inc. when assessing the project’s traffic and noise impacts. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Amended Petition of UPC Vermont Wind, LLC
green
2 sentences2017The Supreme Court has found that a development will have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics if: “(1) it violates a clear, written community standard intended to preserve the aesthetics or scenic, natural beauty of the area; or (2) it offends the sensibilities of the average person; or (3) the applicant has failed to take generally available mitigating steps that a reasonable person would take to improve the harmony of the proposed project with its surroundings.” In re UPC Vermont Wind, LLC, 2009 VT 19, ¶ 24 , 185 Vt. 296 (citing In re Times & Seasons, LLC, 2008 VT 7, ¶ 8 , 183 Vt. 336 ). -3 2017The Supreme Court has found that a development will have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics if: “(1) it violates a clear, written community standard intended to preserve the aesthetics or scenic, natural beauty of the area; or (2) it offends the sensibilities of the average person; or (3) the applicant has failed to take generally available mitigating steps that a reasonable person would take to improve the harmony of the proposed project with its surroundings.” In re UPC Vermont Wind, LLC, 2009 VT 19, ¶ 24 , 185 Vt. 296 (citing In re Times & Seasons, LLC, 2008 VT 7, ¶ 8 , 183 Vt. 336 ). -3 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Appeal of Times & Seasons, LLC
green
2 sentences2017The Supreme Court has found that a development will have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics if: “(1) it violates a clear, written community standard intended to preserve the aesthetics or scenic, natural beauty of the area; or (2) it offends the sensibilities of the average person; or (3) the applicant has failed to take generally available mitigating steps that a reasonable person would take to improve the harmony of the proposed project with its surroundings.” In re UPC Vermont Wind, LLC, 2009 VT 19, ¶ 24 , 185 Vt. 296 (citing In re Times & Seasons, LLC, 2008 VT 7, ¶ 8 , 183 Vt. 336 ). -3 2017The Supreme Court has found that a development will have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics if: “(1) it violates a clear, written community standard intended to preserve the aesthetics or scenic, natural beauty of the area; or (2) it offends the sensibilities of the average person; or (3) the applicant has failed to take generally available mitigating steps that a reasonable person would take to improve the harmony of the proposed project with its surroundings.” In re UPC Vermont Wind, LLC, 2009 VT 19, ¶ 24 , 185 Vt. 296 (citing In re Times & Seasons, LLC, 2008 VT 7, ¶ 8 , 183 Vt. 336 ). -3 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.