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 1967–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Nehemiah Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2015These factors are intended to “assist in assessing the competing policies of flexibility and finality in the permitting process.” In re Nehemiah Assocs., 168 Vt. 288, 294 , 719 A.2d 34, 37 (1998). 2015These factors are intended to “assist in assessing the competing policies of flexibility and finality in the permitting process.” In re Nehemiah Assocs., 168 Vt. 288, 294 , 719 A.2d 34, 37 (1998). | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Stowe Club Highlands
green
2 sentences2015Our decision generally affirmed the reliance on factors that had been identified by the former Environmental Board: (1) whether there had been “changes in factual or regulatory circumstances beyond the control of a permittee”; (2) whether there had been “changes in the construction or operation of the permittee’s project, not reasonably foreseeable at the time the permit was issued”; and (3) whether there had been “changes in technology.” Id. at 38 , 687 A.2d at 105 . 2015Our decision generally affirmed the reliance on factors that had been identified by the former Environmental Board: (1) whether there had been “changes in factual or regulatory circumstances beyond the control of a permittee”; (2) whether there had been “changes in the construction or operation of the permittee’s project, not reasonably foreseeable at the time the permit was issued”; and (3) whether there had been “changes in technology.” Id. at 38 , 687 A.2d at 105 . | 3 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Baptist Fellowship of Randolph, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018The reliance requirement arises from the reconciliation of Act 250 Rule 2(C)(4)'s ostensibly contradictory use of the words "contribution" and "donation," which are-by definition-voluntarily given without consideration, with an "exchange." Baptist Fellowship , 144 Vt. at 639 , 481 A.2d at 1276 . 2018The reliance requirement arises from the reconciliation of Act 250 Rule 2(C)(4)'s ostensibly contradictory use of the words "contribution" and "donation," which are-by definition-voluntarily given without consideration, with an "exchange." Baptist Fellowship , 144 Vt. at 639 , 481 A.2d at 1276 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Glassford v. Dufresne & Associates, P.C.
green
2 sentences2015Glassford v. Dufresne & Assocs., 2015 VT 77 , ¶¶ 22-23, 199 Vt. 422 , 124 A.3d 822 . ¶ 19. 2015Glassford v. Dufresne & Assocs., 2015 VT 77 , ¶¶ 22-23, 199 Vt. 422 , 124 A.3d 822 . ¶ 19. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Glassford v. Dufresne & Associates, P.C.
green
1 sentence2015Glassford v. Dufresne & Assocs., 2015 VT 77 , ¶¶ 22-23, 199 Vt. 422 , 124 A.3d 822 . ¶ 19. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Schafer v. Fraser Et Ux
green
2 sentences1967The Supreme Court of Oregon, in Schafer v. Fraser, 206 Or. 466, 481 , 290 P.2d 190, 206 , 294 P.2d 609 , said: Therefore, we believe that the doctrine of reliance, whereby an unrecompensed promise can be rendered enforceable, is one of general application; provided, of course, that the individual case is brought fully within the rigorous exactions of the doctrine. 1967The Supreme Court of Oregon, in Schafer v. Fraser, 206 Or. 466, 481 , 290 P.2d 190, 206 , 294 P.2d 609 , said: Therefore, we believe that the doctrine of reliance, whereby an unrecompensed promise can be rendered enforceable, is one of general application; provided, of course, that the individual case is brought fully within the rigorous exactions of the doctrine. | 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.