Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 15 Chapter 20
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 1077 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 002 : JURISDICTION

(Cite as: 15 V.S.A. § 1077)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2014–2018 · leading case: In re A.W., 2014 VT 32 (Vt. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re A.W., 2014 VT 32 (Vt. 2014). · cites it 6× “15 V.S.A. § 1077. For the reasons set forth in the majority’s opinion, I believe the trial court’s decision to exercise its jurisdiction was within its broad discretion.”
Kevin Ward v. Renee LaRue, 2016 VT 81 (Vt. 2016). · cites it 2× “According to mother, Vermont is an inconvenient forum under 15 V.S.A. § 1077, and the court failed to consider the statutory factors or identify the basis for its decision to the contrary.”
In re M.S., 176 A.3d 1124 (Vt. 2017). “I agree with the outcome of the majority's analysis not on the basis of an across-the-board rule about newborns in the hospital, but because in this case the evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that, on account of mother's lack of an established home at the time of…”
Andrew Alex Bratton v. Laura Holland (Bratton), 192 A.3d 1257 (Vt. 2018). · cites it 2× “” 15 V.S.A. § 1077(a). Again, mother did not argue that Vermont was an inconvenient forum, and the court thus made no ruling on this question.”
In re M.S., Juv. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017). “§ 1076(a) (establishing first-in-time rule, where multiple states have jurisdiction); 15 V.S.A. § 1077 (providing that court with jurisdiction may decline to exercise jurisdiction).”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 1077(a) — 3 cases
Andrew Alex Bratton v. Laura Holland (Bratton), 192 A.3d 1257 (Vt. 2018). “” 15 V.S.A. § 1077(a). Again, mother did not argue that Vermont was an inconvenient forum, and the court thus made no ruling on this question.”
In re A.W., 2014 VT 32 (Vt. 2014). “15 V.S.A. § 1077. For the reasons set forth in the majority’s opinion, I believe the trial court’s decision to exercise its jurisdiction was within its broad discretion.”
Kevin Ward v. Renee LaRue, 2016 VT 81 (Vt. 2016). “According to mother, Vermont is an inconvenient forum under 15 V.S.A. § 1077, and the court failed to consider the statutory factors or identify the basis for its decision to the contrary.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 1077(b) — 1 case
In re A.W., 2014 VT 32 (Vt. 2014). “15 V.S.A. § 1077. For the reasons set forth in the majority’s opinion, I believe the trial court’s decision to exercise its jurisdiction was within its broad discretion.”
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.