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 1909–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hinsman v. Marble Savings Bankgreen2 sentences2010The Court has added that termination of a lease must be by “some act unequivocally manifesting the lessor’s intention to claim the 4 forfeiture and his election to terminate the lease.” Hinsman v. Marble Savings Bank, 104 Vt. 40, 42 (1931). 1989In Hinsman v. Marble Savings Bank, 100 Vt. 48, 50 , 134 A. 635, 636 (1926), the Court noted that forfeitures “are not favored by the law.” In Hinsman v. Marble Savings Bank, 104 Vt. 40, 42 , 156 A. 874, 875 (1931), the Court added that termination must be by “some act unequivocally *169 manifesting the lessor’s intention to claim the forfeiture and his election to terminate the lease.” Consistent with our law’s differentiation between a tenant’s breach or default and the landlord’s termination, Article XXVIII contains an authorization to terminate (“Lessor may terminate”) rather than an automa | 2 | 3 |
Hinsman v. Marble Savings Bankgreen2 sentences1989In Hinsman v. Marble Savings Bank, 100 Vt. 48, 50 , 134 A. 635, 636 (1926), the Court noted that forfeitures “are not favored by the law.” In Hinsman v. Marble Savings Bank, 104 Vt. 40, 42 , 156 A. 874, 875 (1931), the Court added that termination must be by “some act unequivocally *169 manifesting the lessor’s intention to claim the forfeiture and his election to terminate the lease.” Consistent with our law’s differentiation between a tenant’s breach or default and the landlord’s termination, Article XXVIII contains an authorization to terminate (“Lessor may terminate”) rather than an automa 1989In Hinsman v. Marble Savings Bank, 100 Vt. 48, 50 , 134 A. 635, 636 (1926), the Court noted that forfeitures “are not favored by the law.” In Hinsman v. Marble Savings Bank, 104 Vt. 40, 42 , 156 A. 874, 875 (1931), the Court added that termination must be by “some act unequivocally *169 manifesting the lessor’s intention to claim the forfeiture and his election to terminate the lease.” Consistent with our law’s differentiation between a tenant’s breach or default and the landlord’s termination, Article XXVIII contains an authorization to terminate (“Lessor may terminate”) rather than an automa | 1 | 1 |
Jansson v. Swedish American Linegreen1 sentence1965In “applying this intention test, what the courts seem to do is to examine all the points of contact which the transaction has with the two or more jurisdictions involved, with a view to determining the ‘center of gravity’ of the contract, or of the aspect of the contract immediately before the Court; and when they have identified the jurisdiction with which the matter at hand is predominantly or most intimately concerned, they conclude that this is the proper law of the contract which the parties presumably had in view at the time of contracting.” Jansson v. Swedish American Line, (C.C.A. 1st | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Houghton v. Cook
green
1 sentence2010The Houghton Court specifically held that “before the lessor can enforce a forfeiture for the breach of the covenant to pay taxes he must make a demand on the tenant to pay them.” 91 Vt. at 204 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Tower v. Tower
green
1 sentence1995Although one can change domicile by moving to a new residence and dwelling there with the intent to remain indefinitely, “[a]n essential ingredient of the intention requirement is the intent to give up the old domicile.” Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Town of Georgia v. Town of Waterville
green
2 sentences1989Walker, 124 Vt. at 174 , 200 A.2d at 269 ; Town of Georgia, 107 Vt. at 352 , 178 A. at 899 . 1989Walker, 124 Vt. at 174 , 200 A.2d at 269 ; Town of Georgia, 107 Vt. at 352 , 178 A. at 899 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Walker v. Walker
green
2 sentences1989Walker, 124 Vt. at 174 , 200 A.2d at 269 ; Town of Georgia, 107 Vt. at 352 , 178 A. at 899 . 1989Walker, 124 Vt. at 174 , 200 A.2d at 269 ; Town of Georgia, 107 Vt. at 352 , 178 A. at 899 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Boston Law Book Company v. Hathorn
green
2 sentences1965In “applying this intention test, what the courts seem to do is to examine all the points of contact which the transaction has with the two or more jurisdictions involved, with a view to determining the ‘center of gravity’ of the contract, or of the aspect of the contract immediately before the Court; and when they have identified the jurisdiction with which the matter at hand is predominantly or most intimately concerned, they conclude that this is the proper law of the contract which the parties presumably had in view at the time of contracting.” Jansson v. Swedish American Line, (C.C.A. 1st 1965In “applying this intention test, what the courts seem to do is to examine all the points of contact which the transaction has with the two or more jurisdictions involved, with a view to determining the ‘center of gravity’ of the contract, or of the aspect of the contract immediately before the Court; and when they have identified the jurisdiction with which the matter at hand is predominantly or most intimately concerned, they conclude that this is the proper law of the contract which the parties presumably had in view at the time of contracting.” Jansson v. Swedish American Line, (C.C.A. 1st | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Davenport v. Newton
green
2 sentences1909Davenport v. Newton, 71 Vt. 11, 16 , 42 Atl. 1087 ; and one of those elements, and an essential one, is an intention to claim title. 1909Davenport v. Newton, 71 Vt. 11, 16 , 42 Atl. 1087 ; and one of those elements, and an essential one, is an intention to claim title. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
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.