Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 04 Chapter 1
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 04, § 34 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(Cite as: 4 V.S.A. § 34)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: Donald Gould v. Town of Monkton, 2016 VT 84 (Vt. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Donald Gould v. Town of Monkton, 2016 VT 84 (Vt. 2016). · cites it 6× “Here, the critical question raised by landowner is whether 4 V.S.A. § 34 divests the civil division of jurisdiction over his claims that Monkton enacted the UPD in violation of 24 V.”
In Re Ranney Dairy Farm, LLC Major Subdivision Appeal-Westminster DRB Permit No. 21-70 (Daniel Deitz, Appellants), 2024 VT 66 (Vt. 2024). · cites it 5× “The court otherwise refused to “interpret the laying out of Old Codding Road and the documents associated with this process or its discontinuance” because it determined that its jurisdiction under 4 V.S.A. § 34 permitted it only to consider “threshold showings of private…”
In Re DJK, LLC WW & WS Permit (Ralph Crowley & Joanne Crowley, Appellants), 2024 VT 34 (Vt. 2024). · cites it 4× “3 of the Permit creates or establishes an easement burdening [their] Property,” or “even determine whether the Permit imposes an easement, a covenant, a servitude or any other specific legal interest in real property.”
Vermont Human Rights Comm'n v. Town of St. Johnsbury, 2024 VT 71 (Vt. 2024). “The Commission’s claims here arise under Title 9, not any of the chapters or subchapters enumerated in 4 V.S.A. § 34. Because this is a civil action that does not fall under the jurisdiction of any of the other divisions of the superior court, “original and exclusive…”
32 Intervale, LLC v. City of Burlington (Vt. 2026). · cites it 2× “The court concluded that because nonconforming uses arose from Chapter 117 and because the Environmental Division had sole jurisdiction over matters arising from that chapter, the civil division did not have jurisdiction over the case.”
In Re Dousevicz, Inc. CU & Site Plan Approval (Kathleen Culpo, Appellants), 2025 VT 22 (Vt. 2025). “3d 911 ; 4 V.S.A. § 34 (identifying Environmental Division’s jurisdiction).”
Spaulding NOV - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “4 V.S.A. § 34 (defining the jurisdiction of the Environmental Division).”
NEWSVT Declaratory Ruling Appeal - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “4 V.S.A. § 34 (defining the scope of jurisdiction of the Environmental Division).”
Capitol Plaza Act 250 - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “4 V.S.A. § 34. This Court’s authority to hear Act 250 matters derives from § 34(1).”
Lonie Parker DBA Porky's Bkyd BBQ SP & NOV - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “7 4 V.S.A. § 34 (limiting this Court’s jurisdiction under specific statutes).”
Bennington High, LLC Dev. Agreement Amendment - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). · cites it 2× “The Environmental Division is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we are limited to considering only those areas authorized by 4 V.S.A. § 34. In re DJK, LLC WW & WS Permit, 2024 VT 34, ¶ 25 .”
32 Intervale, LLC v. City of Burlington (Vt. 2025). · cites it 2× “” Then, 4 V.S.A. § 34 states an exception to the civil division’s general and exclusive jurisdiction.”
Show all 44 citing cases →
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 04, § 34(1) — 4 cases
In Re Ranney Dairy Farm, LLC Major Subdivision Appeal-Westminster DRB Permit No. 21-70 (Daniel Deitz, Appellants), 2024 VT 66 (Vt. 2024). “The court otherwise refused to “interpret the laying out of Old Codding Road and the documents associated with this process or its discontinuance” because it determined that its jurisdiction under 4 V.S.A. § 34 permitted it only to consider “threshold showings of private…”
In Re DJK, LLC WW & WS Permit (Ralph Crowley & Joanne Crowley, Appellants), 2024 VT 34 (Vt. 2024). “3 of the Permit creates or establishes an easement burdening [their] Property,” or “even determine whether the Permit imposes an easement, a covenant, a servitude or any other specific legal interest in real property.”
Capitol Plaza Act 250 - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2020). “4 V.S.A. § 34. This Court’s authority to hear Act 250 matters derives from § 34(1).”
Weinstein v. Harmon (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 04, § 34(2) — 4 cases
In Re Ranney Dairy Farm, LLC Major Subdivision Appeal-Westminster DRB Permit No. 21-70 (Daniel Deitz, Appellants), 2024 VT 66 (Vt. 2024). “The court otherwise refused to “interpret the laying out of Old Codding Road and the documents associated with this process or its discontinuance” because it determined that its jurisdiction under 4 V.S.A. § 34 permitted it only to consider “threshold showings of private…”
Bennington High, LLC Dev. Agreement Amendment - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). “The Environmental Division is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we are limited to considering only those areas authorized by 4 V.S.A. § 34. In re DJK, LLC WW & WS Permit, 2024 VT 34, ¶ 25 .”
Whitaker v. Accd (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026).
Univ. Mall, LLC v. City of So. Burlington (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 04, § 34(a) — 1 case
In Re DJK, LLC WW & WS Permit (Ralph Crowley & Joanne Crowley, Appellants), 2024 VT 34 (Vt. 2024). “3 of the Permit creates or establishes an easement burdening [their] Property,” or “even determine whether the Permit imposes an easement, a covenant, a servitude or any other specific legal interest in real property.”
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.