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.
7 Vermont opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 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. Gallaghergreen1 sentence2025State v. Hoch, 2011 VT 4, ¶ 10 , 189 Vt. 560 (mem.); State v. Gallagher, 150 Vt. 341, 344-47 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Garbitelli v. Town of Brookfieldgreen2 sentences2014See Garbitelli v. Town of Brookfield, 2011 VT 122, ¶ 6 , 191 Vt. 76 . 2014See Garbitelli v. Town of Brookfield, 2011 VT 122, ¶ 6 , 191 Vt. 76 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Appeal of Houstongreen2 sentences2008See In re Houston, 2006 VT 59, ¶ 10 , 180 Vt. 535 , 904 A.2d 1174 (mem.) (holding that administrative fair healing is a de novo evidentiary hearing). 2008See In re Houston, 2006 VT 59, ¶ 10 , 180 Vt. 535 , 904 A.2d 1174 (mem.) (holding that administrative fair healing is a de novo evidentiary hearing). | 1 | 1 |
Tarrant v. Department of Taxesgreen2 sentences2008See Tarrant v. Dep’t of Taxes, 169 Vt. 189, 195 , 733 A.2d 733, 738 (1999) (“Where there is an intermediate level of appeal from an administrative body, we review the case under the same standard as applied in the intermediate appeal.”). ¶ 8. 2008See Tarrant v. Dep’t of Taxes, 169 Vt. 189, 195 , 733 A.2d 733, 738 (1999) (“Where there is an intermediate level of appeal from an administrative body, we review the case under the same standard as applied in the intermediate appeal.”). ¶ 8. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Grievance of Danforthgreen2 sentences2006By authorizing a de novo hearing, the statute plainly empowers the Board “to compel testimony and evidence by subpoena, examine witnesses and issue written findings.” In re Danforth, 174 Vt. 231, 238 , 812 A.2d 845, 851 (2002). 2006By authorizing a de novo hearing, the statute plainly empowers the Board “to compel testimony and evidence by subpoena, examine witnesses and issue written findings.” In re Danforth, 174 Vt. 231, 238 , 812 A.2d 845, 851 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whitton v. Scott
green
1 sentence2026Whitton v. Scott, 120 Vt. 452 (1958), In re Estate of Doran, 2010 VT 13 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In Re Estate of Doran
green
1 sentence2026Whitton v. Scott, 120 Vt. 452 (1958), In re Estate of Doran, 2010 VT 13 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Hoch
green
2 sentences2025State v. Hoch, 2011 VT 4, ¶ 10 , 189 Vt. 560 (mem.); State v. Gallagher, 150 Vt. 341, 344-47 (1988). 2025State v. Hoch, 2011 VT 4, ¶ 10 , 189 Vt. 560 (mem.); State v. Gallagher, 150 Vt. 341, 344-47 (1988). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Baker
green
2 sentences2025State v. Baker, 2015 VT 62 , ¶ 4 n.2, 199 Vt. 639 (mem.); * Defendant suggested at the de novo evidentiary hearing that the submission of out-of- court statements infringes upon the right of confrontation. 2025State v. Baker, 2015 VT 62 , ¶ 4 n.2, 199 Vt. 639 (mem.); * Defendant suggested at the de novo evidentiary hearing that the submission of out-of- court statements infringes upon the right of confrontation. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Kelly v. Board of Education of Monticello Independent School District
green
1 sentence2011Nevertheless, the court concluded that the appellant’s right to a de novo evidentiary hearing in the circuit court was sufficient “to cure any deficiencies in the due process hearing at the Board level.” Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Katruska v. Bethlehem Center School District
green
1 sentence2011The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reached a similar conclusion in Katruska v. Bethlehem Center School District, 767 A.2d 1051 (Pa. 2001), where a high school principal claimed that his demotion violated due process because a school board member’s wife, also a high school employee, had testified at the hearing. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.