7 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 1965–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Aguilargreen2 sentences2007United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 599 , 115 S.Ct. 2357 , 132 L.Ed.2d 520 (1995). 2007United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 599 (1995). | 1 | 2 |
Cliche v. Clichegreen2 sentences2012Here, defendants rely on Rule 60(b)(6), 1 which is an omnibus clause providing that “the court may relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” We have stated “that relief from judgment under V.R.C.P.. 60(b)(6) is, by its very nature, invoked to prevent hardship or injustice and thus is to be liberally construed and applied.” Cliche v. Cliche, 143 Vt. 301, 306 , 466 A.2d 314, 316 (1983). ¶ 10. 2012Here, defendants rely on Rule 60(b)(6), 1 which is an omnibus clause providing that “the court may relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” We have stated “that relief from judgment under V.R.C.P.. 60(b)(6) is, by its very nature, invoked to prevent hardship or injustice and thus is to be liberally construed and applied.” Cliche v. Cliche, 143 Vt. 301, 306 , 466 A.2d 314, 316 (1983). ¶ 10. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Billy Franklin Brand and Dennis Randall Wattsgreen1 sentence1996See United States v. Brand, 775 F.2d 1460, 1464-65 (11th Cir. 1985) (§ 1503 has specific clause covering jurors and court officials, and omnibus clause “broad enough to cover any act committed corruptly, in an endeavor to impede or obstruct justice”). | 1 | 1 |
AMERICAN FIDELITY COMPANY v. Elkinsgreen2 sentences1995The omnibus clause in the State Farm policy defines an insured as “any other person while using such a car if its use is within the scope of consent of you or your spouse.” This Court previously upheld the enforceability of such a clause in American Fidelity Co. v. Elkins, 125 Vt. 313, 315 , 215 A.2d 516, 518 (1965). 1995The omnibus clause in the State Farm policy defines an insured as “any other person while using such a car if its use is within the scope of consent of you or your spouse.” This Court previously upheld the enforceability of such a clause in American Fidelity Co. v. Elkins, 125 Vt. 313, 315 , 215 A.2d 516, 518 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. O'NEILL
green
2 sentences2011In this case, the trial court in the criminal case determined that internal affairs investigations governed by 20 V.S.A. § 1923 do relate to and implicate the administration of justice to the point that interference with them constitutes obstruction of justice, and it found probable *159 cause on that basis. 8 That judgment was based on our decision in State v. O’Neill, 165 Vt. 270 , 682 A.2d 943 (1996), which interpreted the omnibus clause of 13 V.S.A. § 3015 broadly. 2011In this case, the trial court in the criminal case determined that internal affairs investigations governed by 20 V.S.A. § 1923 do relate to and implicate the administration of justice to the point that interference with them constitutes obstruction of justice, and it found probable *159 cause on that basis. 8 That judgment was based on our decision in State v. O’Neill, 165 Vt. 270 , 682 A.2d 943 (1996), which interpreted the omnibus clause of 13 V.S.A. § 3015 broadly. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
American Fidelity Co. v. North British & Mercantile Insurance
green
2 sentences1965No general rules of any kind can be formulated which would guide in the construction of garage liability policies because of the great varations in the wordings of the policies and differences in the factual situations involved in the individual cases. *121 In American Fidelity v. North British, 124 Vt. 271 , 204 A. 2d 110 , Justice Barney after discussing rules of construction respecting the omnibus clause of an insurance contract, said at page 273: “It is, therefore, usually best for courts to meet the issues completely on a case by case basis, leaving classification to others, limiting the 1965No general rules of any kind can be formulated which would guide in the construction of garage liability policies because of the great varations in the wordings of the policies and differences in the factual situations involved in the individual cases. *121 In American Fidelity v. North British, 124 Vt. 271 , 204 A. 2d 110 , Justice Barney after discussing rules of construction respecting the omnibus clause of an insurance contract, said at page 273: “It is, therefore, usually best for courts to meet the issues completely on a case by case basis, leaving classification to others, limiting the | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Didlake v. Standard Ins. Co
green
1 sentence1965We held in American Fidelity Company v. Daniels, 122 Vt. 14 , 163 A. 2d 617 , an insurance contract case, that “permission” implies the right of refusal; in Didlake v. Standard Insurance Company, 195 F. 2d 247 , that the words “consent” or “permission” as used in the omnibus clause cannot be the power to withhold as well as grant. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
American Fidelity Company v. Daniels
green
2 sentences1965We held in American Fidelity Company v. Daniels, 122 Vt. 14 , 163 A. 2d 617 , an insurance contract case, that “permission” implies the right of refusal; in Didlake v. Standard Insurance Company, 195 F. 2d 247 , that the words “consent” or “permission” as used in the omnibus clause cannot be the power to withhold as well as grant. 1965We held in American Fidelity Company v. Daniels, 122 Vt. 14 , 163 A. 2d 617 , an insurance contract case, that “permission” implies the right of refusal; in Didlake v. Standard Insurance Company, 195 F. 2d 247 , that the words “consent” or “permission” as used in the omnibus clause cannot be the power to withhold as well as grant. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.