Soucy v. Soucy Motors, Inc., 471 A.2d 224 (Vt. 1983). · cites it 2דUnder 4 V.S.A. § 112 this Court observed "that the superior judge, albeit the presiding judge, did not constitute a statutory court .”
In Re Boardman, 2009 VT 42 (Vt. 2009). · cites it 2דIn addition, in certain limited circumstances assistant judges may hear and decide small claims actions, 12 V.”
Debus v. Grand Union Stores of Vermont, 621 A.2d 1288 (Vt. 1993). · cites it 2דA judge's decision whether to grant a motion for a new trial involves mixed questions of both law and fact, which questions are to be decided by the presiding judge alone.”
Suitor v. Suitor, 400 A.2d 999 (Vt. 1979). · cites it 2דNo showing has been made here that the assistant judges were disqualified. It follows then that the superior judge, albeit the presiding judge, did not constitute a statutory court.”
Brennen v. Mogul Corp., 557 A.2d 870 (Vt. 1988). · cites it 3ד§ 112(c). Defendant’s argument is based on 4 V.”
Riehle v. Tudhope, 765 A.2d 885 (Vt. 2000). “Under 4 V.S.A. § 112, “questions of law shall be decided by the presiding judge” and “[mjixed questions of law and fact shall be deemed to be questions of law.”
Bevins v. King, 513 A.2d 41 (Vt. 1986). · cites it 3דSee 4 V.S.A. § 112(b). Accordingly, this case must be remanded to the superior court for determination as to whether the findings reflect the beliefs of the assistant judge who participated at trial.”
Lewandoski v. Vermont State Colleges, 457 A.2d 1384 (Vt. 1983). “4 V.S.A. § 112. As there had been no showing that the assistant judges were disqualified, we held that the presiding judge alone did not constitute a statutory court, that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the cause, and thus that the order was without…”
Furno v. Pignona, 522 A.2d 746 (Vt. 1986). · cites it 3ד4 V.S.A. § 112 (subsequently amended). Defendants contend that “unavailability” is a factual question.”
Bolduc v. Courtemanche, 603 A.2d 1129 (Vt. 1992). · cites it 3דTitle 4 V.S.A. § 112 makes clear that “questions of law shall be decided by the presiding judge” and that “[m]ixed questions of law and fact shall be deemed to be questions of law.”
Bloch v. Angney, 538 A.2d 174 (Vt. 1987). “See 4 V.S.A. § 112(b). Therefore, the presiding judge *31 acted within the scope of his authority in granting defendant’s previous motion to dismiss.”
In Re Boardman, 2009 VT 42 (Vt. 2009). “In addition, in certain limited circumstances assistant judges may hear and decide small claims actions, 12 V.”
Brennen v. Mogul Corp., 557 A.2d 870 (Vt. 1988). “§ 112(c). Defendant’s argument is based on 4 V.”
Debus v. Grand Union Stores of Vermont, 621 A.2d 1288 (Vt. 1993). “A judge's decision whether to grant a motion for a new trial involves mixed questions of both law and fact, which questions are to be decided by the presiding judge alone.”
Bloch v. Angney, 538 A.2d 174 (Vt. 1987). “See 4 V.S.A. § 112(b). Therefore, the presiding judge *31 acted within the scope of his authority in granting defendant’s previous motion to dismiss.”
Bolduc v. Courtemanche, 603 A.2d 1129 (Vt. 1992). “Title 4 V.S.A. § 112 makes clear that “questions of law shall be decided by the presiding judge” and that “[m]ixed questions of law and fact shall be deemed to be questions of law.”
Bevins v. King, 513 A.2d 41 (Vt. 1986). “See 4 V.S.A. § 112(b). Accordingly, this case must be remanded to the superior court for determination as to whether the findings reflect the beliefs of the assistant judge who participated at trial.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 04, § 112(c) — 6 cases
In Re Boardman, 2009 VT 42 (Vt. 2009). “In addition, in certain limited circumstances assistant judges may hear and decide small claims actions, 12 V.”
Bevins v. King, 513 A.2d 41 (Vt. 1986). “See 4 V.S.A. § 112(b). Accordingly, this case must be remanded to the superior court for determination as to whether the findings reflect the beliefs of the assistant judge who participated at trial.”
Brennen v. Mogul Corp., 557 A.2d 870 (Vt. 1988). “§ 112(c). Defendant’s argument is based on 4 V.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.