(a) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person, with intent to cause public
inconvenience or annoyance, or recklessly creates a risk thereof:
(1) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;
(2) makes unreasonable noise;
(3) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language;
(4) without lawful authority, disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or
(5) obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
(b) A person who is convicted of disorderly conduct shall be imprisoned for not more than
60 days or fined not more than $500.00, or both. A person who is convicted of a second
or subsequent offense under this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 120
days or fined not more than $1,000.00, or both.
(c) As used in this section:
(1) “Disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons” means conduct that substantially
impairs the effective conduct of an assembly or meeting, including conduct that:
(A) causes an assembly or meeting to terminate prematurely; or
(B) consists of numerous and sustained efforts to disrupt an assembly or meeting after
being asked to desist.
(2) “Meeting” includes a meeting of a public body, as those terms are defined in 1 V.S.A. § 310. (Amended 1971, No. 222 (Adj. Sess.), § 5, eff. April 5, 1972; 2013, No. 150 (Adj. Sess.), § 3; 2025, No. 51, § 5, eff. June 9, 2025.)
State v. William Schenk, 190 A.3d 820 (Vt. 2018). · cites it 32ד…ante, ¶ 26-27. The private interest in freedom from targeted threats may be amply protected by other statutes besides 13 V.S.A. § 1026. See 13 V.S.A. §§ 1026a, § 1027, § 1702. In fact, these other statutory provisions are arguably far better suited than § 1026 to address…”
State v. Read, 680 A.2d 944 (Vt. 1996). · cites it 24ד13 V.S.A. § 1026 (emphasis added). Defendant was charged with violating the emphasized provision of § 1026.”
State v. David Tracy, 2015 VT 111 (Vt. 2015). · cites it 8ד5 At the time of the charges and trial, this provision was at 13 V.S.A. § 1026(3). In 2014, the Legislature added subsection (b) to § 1026 and relettered the statute accordingly.”
State v. Albarelli, 2011 VT 24 (Vt. 2011). · cites it 6ד2d 944, 948 (1996); 13 V.S.A. § 1026; see, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat.”
State v. Amsden, 2013 VT 51 (Vt. 2013). · cites it 4דDefendant was charged with one count of disorderly-conduct in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1026 and one count of cruelty to a child in violation of 13 V.”
State v. Cole, 554 A.2d 253 (Vt. 1988). · cites it 3דThe main question in this case is whether the State proved sufficient facts to convict defendant, John Cole, of disorderly conduct in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1026. The trial court found sufficient proof and submitted the case to the jury, which convicted defendant.”
State v. Lund, 475 A.2d 1055 (Vt. 1984). · cites it 4דIn this regard, he points out that he was charged with violating 13 V.S.A. § 1026 (1), which states, in part, that: A person who, with intent to cause public inconvenience, or annoyance or recklessly creating a risk thereof: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or…”
Long v. L'esperance, 701 A.2d 1048 (Vt. 1997). · cites it 4דFollowing his arrest by defendant Trooper EEsperanee on the charge of disorderly conduct, see 13 V.S.A. § 1026, plaintiff brought this action alleging unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
State v. Sanville, 2011 VT 34 (Vt. 2011). · cites it 2דContrary to the State’s position, we find no support that defendant’s acts could have given rise to a charge of disorderly conduct under 13 V.S.A. § 1026. See State v. Albarelli, 2011 VT 24, ¶ 9 , 189 Vt.”
State v. McDermott, 373 A.2d 510 (Vt. 1977). · cites it 5דWe do not reach the defendants’ third contention that 13 V.S.A. § 1026 is unconstitutionally vague on its face.”
Sandra Baird & Jared Carter, 2016 VT 6 (Vt. 2016). “Compare Burlington Ordinances §§ 21-46, 21-47 (defining and prohibiting “disorderly conduct” and “unlawful mischief’ respectively) with 13 V.S.A. §§ 1026, 3701 (same). The third violation *116 is substantially the same as another municipal violation.”
State v. Arbeitman, 313 A.2d 17 (Vt. 1973). · cites it 5דSuch intentional obstruction is one form of disorderly conduct prohibited by 13 V.S.A. § 1026. The relevant portions of this section provide: A person who, with intent to cause public inconvenience, or annoyance .”
State v. Albarelli, 2011 VT 24 (Vt. 2011). “2d 944, 948 (1996); 13 V.S.A. § 1026; see, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat.”
State v. Lund, 475 A.2d 1055 (Vt. 1984). “In this regard, he points out that he was charged with violating 13 V.S.A. § 1026 (1), which states, in part, that: A person who, with intent to cause public inconvenience, or annoyance or recklessly creating a risk thereof: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or…”
State v. Read, 680 A.2d 944 (Vt. 1996). “13 V.S.A. § 1026 (emphasis added). Defendant was charged with violating the emphasized provision of § 1026.”
State v. Cole, 554 A.2d 253 (Vt. 1988). “The main question in this case is whether the State proved sufficient facts to convict defendant, John Cole, of disorderly conduct in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1026. The trial court found sufficient proof and submitted the case to the jury, which convicted defendant.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 1026(2) — 1 case
State v. McDermott, 373 A.2d 510 (Vt. 1977). “We do not reach the defendants’ third contention that 13 V.S.A. § 1026 is unconstitutionally vague on its face.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 1026(3) — 9 cases
State v. Read, 680 A.2d 944 (Vt. 1996). “13 V.S.A. § 1026 (emphasis added). Defendant was charged with violating the emphasized provision of § 1026.”
State v. David Tracy, 2015 VT 111 (Vt. 2015). “5 At the time of the charges and trial, this provision was at 13 V.S.A. § 1026(3). In 2014, the Legislature added subsection (b) to § 1026 and relettered the statute accordingly.”
State v. William Schenk, 190 A.3d 820 (Vt. 2018). “…ante, ¶ 26-27. The private interest in freedom from targeted threats may be amply protected by other statutes besides 13 V.S.A. § 1026. See 13 V.S.A. §§ 1026a, § 1027, § 1702. In fact, these other statutory provisions are arguably far better suited than § 1026 to address…”
Long v. L'esperance, 701 A.2d 1048 (Vt. 1997). “Following his arrest by defendant Trooper EEsperanee on the charge of disorderly conduct, see 13 V.S.A. § 1026, plaintiff brought this action alleging unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
State v. Read, 680 A.2d 944 (Vt. 1996). “13 V.S.A. § 1026 (emphasis added). Defendant was charged with violating the emphasized provision of § 1026.”
State v. Arbeitman, 313 A.2d 17 (Vt. 1973). “Such intentional obstruction is one form of disorderly conduct prohibited by 13 V.S.A. § 1026. The relevant portions of this section provide: A person who, with intent to cause public inconvenience, or annoyance .”
State v. William Schenk, 190 A.3d 820 (Vt. 2018). “…ante, ¶ 26-27. The private interest in freedom from targeted threats may be amply protected by other statutes besides 13 V.S.A. § 1026. See 13 V.S.A. §§ 1026a, § 1027, § 1702. In fact, these other statutory provisions are arguably far better suited than § 1026 to address…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 1026(a)(1) — 11 cases
State v. William Schenk, 190 A.3d 820 (Vt. 2018). “…ante, ¶ 26-27. The private interest in freedom from targeted threats may be amply protected by other statutes besides 13 V.S.A. § 1026. See 13 V.S.A. §§ 1026a, § 1027, § 1702. In fact, these other statutory provisions are arguably far better suited than § 1026 to address…”
State v. David Tracy, 2015 VT 111 (Vt. 2015). “5 At the time of the charges and trial, this provision was at 13 V.S.A. § 1026(3). In 2014, the Legislature added subsection (b) to § 1026 and relettered the statute accordingly.”
State v. David Tracy, 2015 VT 111 (Vt. 2015). “5 At the time of the charges and trial, this provision was at 13 V.S.A. § 1026(3). In 2014, the Legislature added subsection (b) to § 1026 and relettered the statute accordingly.”
State v. William Schenk, 190 A.3d 820 (Vt. 2018). “…ante, ¶ 26-27. The private interest in freedom from targeted threats may be amply protected by other statutes besides 13 V.S.A. § 1026. See 13 V.S.A. §§ 1026a, § 1027, § 1702. In fact, these other statutory provisions are arguably far better suited than § 1026 to address…”
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.