7 Vermont opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Appeal of Tekram Partnersgreen1 sentence2026Ordinarily, interested persons seeking to appeal the issuance of a zoning permit by an administrative officer must file their notice of appeal “within 15 days of the date of that decision or act.” 24 V.S.A. § 4465(a). 8 This provision provides “the exclusive remedy for contesting local zoning decisions or actions.” In re Tekram Partners, 2005 VT 92, ¶ 8 (citing 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a)). | 1 | 1 |
All Cycle, Inc. v. Chittenden Solid Waste Districtgreen1 sentence2021See id. at 432–33. | 1 | 1 |
Appeal of Farrell & Desautels, Inc.green1 sentence2015In re Farrell & Desautels, Inc., 135 Vt. 614, 616 (1978) (“We cannot subscribe to the proposition that a formal written order which contains some express 5 terms and conditions can also be said to carry with it silent and unexpressed terms and conditions.”). | 1 | 1 |
Gage v. Union Mutual Fire Insurance Companygreen1 sentence2014See 122 Vt. at 248 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. CNA Ins. Companiesgreen1 sentence2014Cos., 172 Vt. 318, 330 (2001). 2 Discussion The issue in these motions is the meaning of “collapse.” As highlighted by the parties, Gage is the closest Vermont Supreme Court case to address this issue. | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.green1 sentence2003Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). | 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 Appeal of Beckstrom
green
2 sentences2009In re Beckstrom, 2004 VT 32, ¶ 9 , 176 Vt. 622 (mem.) (citing In re 1 For a discussion of the standard applicable to the DRB’s factual findings in on-the- record appeals, see In re Appeal of Leikert, No. 2004-213, slip op. at 1–2 (Vt. 2009In re Beckstrom, 2004 VT 32, ¶ 9 , 176 Vt. 622 (mem.) (citing In re 1 For a discussion of the standard applicable to the DRB’s factual findings in on-the- record appeals, see In re Appeal of Leikert, No. 2004-213, slip op. at 1–2 (Vt. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Kelly & Bragg v. Town of Bradford
green
1 sentence1967For a discussion of the doctrine of substantial performance attention is called to Kelly & Bragg v. Town of Bradford, 33 Vt. 35 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.