(a) When it appears to a presiding judge of a Superior Court that there is reason to believe
that a civil action pending in such court cannot be impartially tried in the unit
where it is pending, on petition of either party, such judge shall order the cause
removed to the Superior Court in another unit for trial.
(b) Attachments, recognizances, bonds, and orders in such cause, made before such removal,
shall have the same validity as if the cause had continued in the court to which it
was originally brought. (Amended 1973, No. 193 (Adj. Sess.), § 3, eff. April 9, 1974; 2009, No. 154 (Adj. Sess.), § 68.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: Peer v. State (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026).
Peer v. State (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026). · cites it 2ד§ 37(b)(1)(C) and 12 V.S.A. § 404(a). In particular, Section 404(a) states (a) When it appears to a presiding judge of a Superior Court that there is reason to believe that a civil action pending in such court cannot be impartially tried in the unit where it is pending, on…”
Rutland Hosp v. Gmcb (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). “12 V.S.A. § 404(a). This statute identifies the standard needed to transfer venues between units.”
Peer v. State (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026). “§ 37(b)(1)(C) and 12 V.S.A. § 404(a). In particular, Section 404(a) states (a) When it appears to a presiding judge of a Superior Court that there is reason to believe that a civil action pending in such court cannot be impartially tried in the unit where it is pending, on…”
Rutland Hosp v. Gmcb (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). “12 V.S.A. § 404(a). This statute identifies the standard needed to transfer venues between units.”
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.