(a) An action before a Superior Court shall be brought in the unit in which one of the
parties resides, if either resides in the State; otherwise, on motion, the complaint
shall be dismissed. If neither party resides in the State, the action may be brought
in any unit. Actions concerning real estate shall be brought in the unit in which
the lands, or some part thereof, lie.
(b) An action brought by a domestic railroad corporation to the Superior Court may be
brought either in the unit in which the corporation has its principal office for the
transaction of business, or in the unit in which a defendant resides. An action or
suit brought to the Superior Court, in which the corporation is defendant, may be
brought in any unit in which a road owned or operated by the corporation is located. (Amended 1971, No. 185 (Adj. Sess.), § 31, eff. March 29, 1972; 1973, No. 193 (Adj. Sess.), § 3, eff. April 9, 1974; 2009, No. 154 (Adj. Sess.), § 67.)
Gerdel v. Gerdel, 313 A.2d 8 (Vt. 1973). · cites it 5דSpooner 1787), now 12 V.S.A. § 402, specifically requires a motion to dismiss for improper venue.”
Blanche S. Marsh Inter Vivos Trust v. McGillvray, 2013 VT 6 (Vt. 2013). “g that the dwellings on the two farmstead parcel lots be erected “at the set back line” of 70 feet from Hillside Road and 40 feet from Hillside Road were effective; whether the restrictive covenant is a minimum setback restriction only, and not a maximum setback restriction; and…”
Katlyn Bacigalupo v. Daniel Bacigalupo, 2022 VT 43 (Vt. 2022). · cites it 2דBecause the Legislature “has seen fit to provide for the place[s]” to bring RFA actions “by a statute entirely separate from the venue statute,” we conclude that § 1102(c) controls here, not 12 V.S.A. § 402. Id. at 62, 313 A.2d at 10.”
Est. of Emilo v. St. Pierre, 505 A.2d 664 (Vt. 1985). “12 V.S.A. § 402. Where no party disputes title, however, an action for ejectment may properly be brought in the district court in the county where either party resides.”
State v. Fisher, 360 A.2d 102 (Vt. 1976). “In this connection, defendant assumes that this action concerns real estate and is governed by 12 V.S.A. § 402. This statute deals with county court, now superior court, actions, and such actions must be brought in the county where the land lies.”
Bergeron v. Boyle, 2003 VT 89 (2003). · cites it 5דDefendant moved to dismiss based on improper venue, asserting that pursuant to 12 V.S.A § 402(a), the case should be heard in Grand Isle County, the situs of the property at issue.”
Balair, Ltd. v. Bordet, 332 A.2d 804 (Vt. 1975). “” 12 V.S.A. § 402 (a). In the case at hand the defendant admitted that he was the owner of the property situated in Jay, which was attached by *184 the plaintiff.”
Boehm v. Mulligan (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026). · cites it 3דThe court noted the lack of statutory authority to do so in these circumstances and asked whether there was any reason that the case should not be dismissed— obviously, though implicitly, in service of Plaintiffs’ expressed desire to pursue the case in the Orange, rather than…”
Blackwood v. Campbell (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2דGuardian argues that she is a party for the purposes of 12 V.S.A. § 402(a) because V.R.C.P. Rule 17 allows her to sue in her own name without joining the minor child.”
Perham Right of Way Det. - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2019). “Waite’s appeal because the DRB did not have jurisdiction to evaluate his request for enforcement of the barn permit, the Bylaws, or Mr.”
Rutland Hosp v. Gmcb (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). “” 12 V.S.A. § 402(a). This appeal was brought pursuant to 18 V.”
Blanche S. Marsh Inter Vivos Trust v. McGillvray, 2013 VT 6 (Vt. 2013). “g that the dwellings on the two farmstead parcel lots be erected “at the set back line” of 70 feet from Hillside Road and 40 feet from Hillside Road were effective; whether the restrictive covenant is a minimum setback restriction only, and not a maximum setback restriction; and…”
Katlyn Bacigalupo v. Daniel Bacigalupo, 2022 VT 43 (Vt. 2022). “Because the Legislature “has seen fit to provide for the place[s]” to bring RFA actions “by a statute entirely separate from the venue statute,” we conclude that § 1102(c) controls here, not 12 V.S.A. § 402. Id. at 62, 313 A.2d at 10.”
Bergeron v. Boyle, 2003 VT 89 (2003). “Defendant moved to dismiss based on improper venue, asserting that pursuant to 12 V.S.A § 402(a), the case should be heard in Grand Isle County, the situs of the property at issue.”
Blackwood v. Campbell (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). “Guardian argues that she is a party for the purposes of 12 V.S.A. § 402(a) because V.R.C.P. Rule 17 allows her to sue in her own name without joining the minor child.”
Perham Right of Way Det. - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2019). “Waite’s appeal because the DRB did not have jurisdiction to evaluate his request for enforcement of the barn permit, the Bylaws, or Mr.”
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.