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 1987–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ying Ji v. Heidegreen2 sentences2022Failure to appear at a scheduled hearing is indeed a serious matter, as it is likely to “needlessly sap[] judicial resources and presumably impose[] costs on [the other parties] in both time and attorney's fees.” Ying Ji v. Heide, 2013 VT 81, ¶ 8 , 194 Vt. 546 . 2022Failure to appear at a scheduled hearing is indeed a serious matter, as it is likely to “needlessly sap[] judicial resources and presumably impose[] costs on [the other parties] in both time and attorney's fees.” Ying Ji v. Heide, 2013 VT 81, ¶ 8 , 194 Vt. 546 . | 1 | 2 |
CLARK'S TRUCK CENTER v. Smithgreen1 sentence2014See Clark’s Truck Center, 2009 VT 80, ¶ 7 (“[T]he purpose of Vermont’s small claims court proceedings is to provide ‘a simple, informal, and inexpensive procedure’ for determining smaller civil actions.”) (quoting 12 V.S.A. § 5531(a)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lussiergreen2 sentences2003Although a challenge to the stop is a proper issue in a final civil suspension hearing, State v. Lussier, 171 Vt. 19, 23 , 757 A.2d 1017, 1020 (2000), the scheduled hearing was a preliminary hearing designed to promote discovery related to the issues to be addressed at the final hearing. 2003Although a challenge to the stop is a proper issue in a final civil suspension hearing, State v. Lussier, 171 Vt. 19, 23 , 757 A.2d 1017, 1020 (2000), the scheduled hearing was a preliminary hearing designed to promote discovery related to the issues to be addressed at the final hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1993See Williams v. Williams, 158 Vt. 574, 576 , 613 A.2d 200, 201 (1992) (court has discretion whether to hold hearing on post-trial motion). 1993See Williams v. Williams, 158 Vt. 574, 576 , 613 A.2d 200, 201 (1992) (court has discretion whether to hold hearing on post-trial motion). | 1 | 1 |
Nationwide Amusements, Inc. v. George L. Nattin, Mayorgreen1 sentence1987Nationwide Amusements, Inc. v. Nattin, 452 F.2d 651, 652 (4th Cir. 1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
LaFrance Architect d/b/a Lake Architectural, LLC v. Point Five Development South Burlington, LLC
green
2 sentences2015After the bankruptcy case was closed, and the foreclosure case 1 These factors have also been described as: “(1) the degree of prejudice suffered by the plaintiff as a result of defendant's delay in answering; (2) the presence of material issues of fact and prima facie evidence of meritorious defenses; (3) the significance of the interests at stake; and (4) the degree of defendant's culpability.” LaFrance Architect v. Point Five Development South Burlington, LLC, 2013 VT 115, ¶ 15 , 195 Vt. 543 . 4 reopened, and although Defendant had yet to answer the complaint, the Court scheduled a hearing 2015After the bankruptcy case was closed, and the foreclosure case 1 These factors have also been described as: “(1) the degree of prejudice suffered by the plaintiff as a result of defendant's delay in answering; (2) the presence of material issues of fact and prima facie evidence of meritorious defenses; (3) the significance of the interests at stake; and (4) the degree of defendant's culpability.” LaFrance Architect v. Point Five Development South Burlington, LLC, 2013 VT 115, ¶ 15 , 195 Vt. 543 . 4 reopened, and although Defendant had yet to answer the complaint, the Court scheduled a hearing | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.