Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1 (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: 12 V.S.A. § 1)

§ 1. Rules of pleading, practice, and procedure; forms

The Supreme Court is empowered to prescribe and amend from time to time general rules with respect to pleadings, practice, evidence, procedure, and forms for all actions and proceedings in all courts of this State. The rules thus prescribed or amended shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive rights of any person provided by law. The rules when initially prescribed or any amendments thereto, including any repeal, modification, or addition, shall take effect on the date provided by the Supreme Court in its order of promulgation, unless objected to by the Legislative Committee on Judicial Rules as provided by this chapter. If objection is made by the Legislative Committee on Judicial Rules, the initially prescribed rules in question shall not take effect until they have been reported to the General Assembly by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at any regular, adjourned, or special session thereof, and until after the expiration of 45 legislative days of that session, including the date of the filing of the report. The General Assembly may repeal, revise, or modify any rule or amendment thereto, and its action shall not be abridged, enlarged, or modified by subsequent rule. (Amended 1967, No. 311 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. March 22, 1968; 1969, No. 119, § 1, eff. April 22, 1969; 1973, No. 118, § 2, eff. Oct. 1, 1973; 1977, No. 254 (Adj. Sess.), § 2, eff. April 19, 1978; 1981, No. 231 (Adj. Sess.), § 2; 2018, No. 8 (Sp. Sess.), § 2, eff. June 28, 2018.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Bloomer v. Gibson, 2006 VT 104 (Vt. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bloomer v. Gibson, 2006 VT 104 (Vt. 2006). · cites it 4× “The initial version of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 38 in substantially the same form as it exists today, was adopted in 1971 pursuant to specific authority granted by the Legislature in 12 V.S.A. § 1. See 1969, No. 119, § 1 (amending 12 V.”

In re Town of Killington, 838 A.2d 98 (Vt. 2003). · cites it 2× “Because the Legislature provides in 12 V.S.A. § 1 that the Supreme Court cannot “abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive rights of any person provided by law,” it categorized extensions for excusable neglect as procedural remedies rather than substantive rights.”

Roy's Orthopedic, Inc. v. Lavigne, 487 A.2d 173 (Vt. 1985). · cites it 3× “12 V.S.A. § 1 provides that court rules "shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive rights of any person.”

State of Vermont Dep't of Taxes v. Tri-State Indus. Laundries, Inc., 415 A.2d 216 (Vt. 1980). “12 V.S.A. § 1. Therefore, “Rule 74(d) leaves the questions of jury trial and scope of review to specific statutory provisions or prior practice governing appeals from particular agencies.”

Miner v. Dist. Court of Vermont, Etc., 392 A.2d 390 (Vt. 1978). · cites it 2× “This is improper until the requirements of 12 V.S.A. § 1 have been met. In the case at bar, the procedure should properly rest on V.”

Koerber v. Middlesex Coll., 383 A.2d 1054 (Vt. 1978). “” 12 V.S.A. § 1; see Reporter’s Notes, V.R.”

Salatino v. Chase, 2007 VT 81 (Vt. 2007). “Our Rules Enabling Act, 12 V.S.A. § 1, is nearly identical to the federal act, with which the Amchem Court was concerned.”

State v. Hart, 539 A.2d 551 (Vt. 1987). “This Court is bound by 12 V.S.A. § 1, which gives this Court authority to promulgate rules of “pleadings, practice, evidence, procedure and forms for all actions and proceedings,” but expressly states that this Court does not have the authority to “abridge, enlarge or modify any…”

Salatino v. Chase, 182 Vt. 267 (Vt. 2007). “Our Rules Enabling Act, 12 V.S.A. § 1, is nearly identical to the federal act, with which the AmChem Court was concerned.”

State v. Cooley, 377 A.2d 1386 (Vt. 1977). “2d 531 (1976); 12 V.S.A. § 1. Contrary to the claims made by the defendant, we do not believe that the Legislature, in approving Rule 32(d), intended to provide another post-conviction forum.”

State v. Corliss, 484 A.2d 924 (Vt. 1984). “5(b) (1) inapplicable because it “enlarges” the requirements of § 7403(c) in violation of 12 V.S.A. § 1, we would be abdicating our constitutional rule-making authority.”

State v. Hanlon, 665 A.2d 603 (Vt. 1995). “See 12 V.S.A. § 1 (Supreme Court rules “shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive rights of any person provided by law”).”

Show all 26 citing cases →

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.