The General Assembly finds it necessary to standardize and enhance the enforcement
powers of the Secretary of Natural Resources and the enforcement powers of the Land
Use Review Board in order to:
(1) enhance the protection of environmental and human health afforded by existing laws;
(2) prevent the unfair economic advantage obtained by persons who operate in violation
of environmental laws;
(3) provide for more even-handed enforcement of environmental laws;
(4) foster greater compliance with environmental laws;
(5) deter repeated violation of environmental laws; and
(6) establish a fair and consistent system for assessing administrative penalties. (Added 1989, No. 98, § 1; amended 2003, No. 115 (Adj. Sess.), § 67, eff. Jan. 31, 2005; 2013, No. 11, § 25.)
Agency of Nat. Resources v. Deso, 2003 VT 36 (Vt. 2003). · cites it 3ד10 V.S.A. § 8001. Deso’s construction would require that the maximum penalty for any violation — no matter how hazardous to the environment or *519 human health, or how long it existed, or the extent of profit realized through the misconduct — never exceed $25,000, unless that…”
Sec'y, Vermont Agency of Nat. Resources v. Handy Fam. Enter., 660 A.2d 309 (Vt. 1995). · cites it 2ד" 10 V.S.A. § 8001(3). The Legislature expected that the environmental judge would develop expertise in environmental enforcement and ensure consistent interpretations of the law.”
In re Beliveau NOV, Town of Fairfax v. Beliveau, 2013 VT 41 (Vt. 2013). “¶ 9; see also 10 V.S.A. §§ 8001(2), 8010(b)(5). Homeowner asserts that the same is true in his case; that is, he should not be required to relinquish all benefits associated with the violation but rather only those that afforded him a competitive advantage over his competitors,…”
Vermont Agency of Nat. Resources v. Bean, 672 A.2d 469 (Vt. 1995). “The ELD then concluded that the Uniform Environmental Law Enforcement Act authorizes imposition of monetary penalties, even without lasting public welfare or environmental harm, in order to deter defendant and others from disregarding permit requirements.”
ANR v. Vorsteveld Farm, LLP - Decision on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2021). · cites it 7ד” In exercising this discretion, I decided not to classify the violation as “continuing” after considering many factors, including that the penalty in the AOD was sufficient to carry out the purposes of 10 V.S.A. § 8001 without “additional penalties for each day” of the…”
Vt. Agency of Nat. Resources v. Bean, 672 A.2d 469 (Vt. 1995). “10 V.S.A. § 8001(3). The record provides reasonable and credible evidence in support of the ELD's findings, and the ELD did not err in assessing penalties based on conclusions from these findings.”
Town of Lyndon v. Brink (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “356 (directing that a trial court evaluating a motion for summary judgment must accept as true the factual allegations made in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and give the non-moving party the benefit of all reasonable doubts and 2 The Uniform Environmental…”
Town of Westford v. Pelkey & Pelkey Zoning Permit - Decision on the Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2019). “10 V.S.A. §§ 8001, et seq. While the Act is specifically applicable to enforcement actions brought by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and the Vermont Natural Resources Board, we have previously relied upon the Act when determining how to assess claims by Vermont…”
Town of Westford v. Mathieu (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014). “Second, there is little guidance in either the Regulations or the applicable statutes to assist in determining what level of fines should be assessed within the broad discretion stated above.”
ANR v. Blood dba Three Mountain Lodge Restaurant (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). “See 10 V.S.A. § 8001 (purposes of Uniform Environmental Enforcement Act include to “prevent the unfair economic advantage obtained by persons who operate in violation of environmental laws” and to “provide for more even-handed enforcement of environmental laws,” as well as to…”
ANR v. White (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). “See 10 V.S.A. § 8001 (purposes of Uniform Environmental Enforcement Act include to “prevent the unfair economic advantage obtained by persons who operate in violation of environmental laws” and to “provide for more even-handed enforcement of environmental laws,” as well as to…”
Agency of Nat. Resources v. Deso, 2003 VT 36 (Vt. 2003). “10 V.S.A. § 8001. Deso’s construction would require that the maximum penalty for any violation — no matter how hazardous to the environment or *519 human health, or how long it existed, or the extent of profit realized through the misconduct — never exceed $25,000, unless that…”
In re Beliveau NOV, Town of Fairfax v. Beliveau, 2013 VT 41 (Vt. 2013). “¶ 9; see also 10 V.S.A. §§ 8001(2), 8010(b)(5). Homeowner asserts that the same is true in his case; that is, he should not be required to relinquish all benefits associated with the violation but rather only those that afforded him a competitive advantage over his competitors,…”
ANR v. Vorsteveld Farm, LLP - Decision on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2021). “” In exercising this discretion, I decided not to classify the violation as “continuing” after considering many factors, including that the penalty in the AOD was sufficient to carry out the purposes of 10 V.S.A. § 8001 without “additional penalties for each day” of the…”
Sec'y, Vermont Agency of Nat. Resources v. Handy Fam. Enter., 660 A.2d 309 (Vt. 1995). “" 10 V.S.A. § 8001(3). The Legislature expected that the environmental judge would develop expertise in environmental enforcement and ensure consistent interpretations of the law.”
Vermont Agency of Nat. Resources v. Bean, 672 A.2d 469 (Vt. 1995). “The ELD then concluded that the Uniform Environmental Law Enforcement Act authorizes imposition of monetary penalties, even without lasting public welfare or environmental harm, in order to deter defendant and others from disregarding permit requirements.”
Vt. Agency of Nat. Resources v. Bean, 672 A.2d 469 (Vt. 1995). “10 V.S.A. § 8001(3). The record provides reasonable and credible evidence in support of the ELD's findings, and the ELD did not err in assessing penalties based on conclusions from these findings.”
ANR v. Vorsteveld Farm, LLP - Decision on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2021). “” In exercising this discretion, I decided not to classify the violation as “continuing” after considering many factors, including that the penalty in the AOD was sufficient to carry out the purposes of 10 V.S.A. § 8001 without “additional penalties for each day” of the…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 8001(5) — 1 case
ANR v. Vorsteveld Farm, LLP - Decision on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2021). “” In exercising this discretion, I decided not to classify the violation as “continuing” after considering many factors, including that the penalty in the AOD was sufficient to carry out the purposes of 10 V.S.A. § 8001 without “additional penalties for each day” of the…”
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.