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.
6 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Monahan v. GMAC Mortgage Corp.green2 sentences2010Compare Villeneuve v. Beane, 2007 VT 75, ¶10 , 182 Vt. 575 , 933 A.2d 1139 (mem.) *262 (concluding that landlord’s conduct in unlawfully evicting tenants was “intentional, unlawful, criminal in nature, and outrageous” and justified punitive damages) with Monahan v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 2005 VT 110, ¶¶ 53, 60 , 179 Vt. 167 , 893 A.2d 298 (concluding that “conduct that does not involve a deliberate decision by the promisor to breach, falls far short of the punitive damages standard” and that conduct evidencing breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing which consisted “mainly of inaction” 2010Compare Villeneuve v. Beane, 2007 VT 75, ¶10 , 182 Vt. 575 , 933 A.2d 1139 (mem.) *262 (concluding that landlord’s conduct in unlawfully evicting tenants was “intentional, unlawful, criminal in nature, and outrageous” and justified punitive damages) with Monahan v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 2005 VT 110, ¶¶ 53, 60 , 179 Vt. 167 , 893 A.2d 298 (concluding that “conduct that does not involve a deliberate decision by the promisor to breach, falls far short of the punitive damages standard” and that conduct evidencing breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing which consisted “mainly of inaction” | 2 | 2 |
Brueckner v. Norwich Universitygreen2 sentences2009Relying mainly on our analysis in Brueckner v. Norwich University, 169 Vt. 118 , 730 A.2d 1086 (1999), the trial court held that the evidence presented against defendants could not support sending a punitive damages instruction to the jury. 2009Relying mainly on our analysis in Brueckner v. Norwich University, 169 Vt. 118 , 730 A.2d 1086 (1999), the trial court held that the evidence presented against defendants could not support sending a punitive damages instruction to the jury. | 1 | 2 |
Villeneuve v. Beanegreen2 sentences2010Compare Villeneuve v. Beane, 2007 VT 75, ¶10 , 182 Vt. 575 , 933 A.2d 1139 (mem.) *262 (concluding that landlord’s conduct in unlawfully evicting tenants was “intentional, unlawful, criminal in nature, and outrageous” and justified punitive damages) with Monahan v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 2005 VT 110, ¶¶ 53, 60 , 179 Vt. 167 , 893 A.2d 298 (concluding that “conduct that does not involve a deliberate decision by the promisor to breach, falls far short of the punitive damages standard” and that conduct evidencing breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing which consisted “mainly of inaction” 2010Compare Villeneuve v. Beane, 2007 VT 75, ¶10 , 182 Vt. 575 , 933 A.2d 1139 (mem.) *262 (concluding that landlord’s conduct in unlawfully evicting tenants was “intentional, unlawful, criminal in nature, and outrageous” and justified punitive damages) with Monahan v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 2005 VT 110, ¶¶ 53, 60 , 179 Vt. 167 , 893 A.2d 298 (concluding that “conduct that does not involve a deliberate decision by the promisor to breach, falls far short of the punitive damages standard” and that conduct evidencing breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing which consisted “mainly of inaction” | 1 | 1 |
Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Beckwithgreen1 sentence2009Tel. & Tel Co., 108 F.3d 981 , 994 (3d Cir. 1997) (noting that, under Oregon law, “the judge determines whether there is evidence of malice as a matter of law, and if he decides there is, the assessment of damages is committed to the jury’s discretion”); Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Beckwith, 989 P.2d 882, 887 (Nev. 1999) (stating that trial court has responsibility “to determine whether, as a matter of law, the plaintiff has offered substantial evidence of malice in fact to support a punitive damages instruction” (quotation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Lorrain v. Ryangreen2 sentences1996See Lorrain v. Ryan, 160 Vt. 202, 207 , 628 A.2d 543, 547 (1993) (failure to make objection after charge is waiver that precludes raising issue on appeal). 1996See Lorrain v. Ryan, 160 Vt. 202, 207 , 628 A.2d 543, 547 (1993) (failure to make objection after charge is waiver that precludes raising issue on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
Hilder v. St. Petergreen2 sentences1989Peter, 144 Vt. 150, 163 , 478 A.2d 202, 210 (1984). 1989Peter, 144 Vt. 150, 163 , 478 A.2d 202, 210 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Juan Manuel Morales v. City of San Rafael and Daniel Hulett
green
1 sentence2009Tel. & Tel Co., 108 F.3d 981 , 994 (3d Cir. 1997) (noting that, under Oregon law, “the judge determines whether there is evidence of malice as a matter of law, and if he decides there is, the assessment of damages is committed to the jury’s discretion”); Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Beckwith, 989 P.2d 882, 887 (Nev. 1999) (stating that trial court has responsibility “to determine whether, as a matter of law, the plaintiff has offered substantial evidence of malice in fact to support a punitive damages instruction” (quotation omitted)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.