Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 19 Chapter 1
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 10 (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: 19 V.S.A. § 10)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1993–2018 · leading case: In re Hinesburg Hannaford Act 250 Permit, 179 A.3d 727 (Vt. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Hinesburg Hannaford Act 250 Permit, 179 A.3d 727 (Vt. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 6087(b), because neither Hannaford nor the Town can install a traffic signal without the participation of VTrans, which is statutorily authorized to "[e]rect and maintain appropriate traffic control devices on State highways," 19 V.S.A. § 10(7), but was not a party in the…”
Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co. v. State, 693 A.2d 1045 (Vt. 1997). “” 19 V.S.A. § 10(1). It is authorized to award contracts on behalf of municipalities, and in such cases, “[a]ll work shall be done to the satisfaction of and in accordance with the requirements of the [Ajgency.”
Luck Bros. v. Agency of Transp., 2014 VT 59 (Vt. 2014). “Although the Agency is statutorily authorized to award contracts “on terms as it deems to be in the best interest of the state, for the construction, repair, or maintenance of transportation related facilities,” 19 V.S.A. § 10(1), Vermont statutes do not require the use of any…”
Peters v. State, 636 A.2d 340 (Vt. 1993). “Since the duty to erect appropriate signs on state roads is conferred on the Agency of Transportation only, 19 V.S.A. § 10(7), private individuals have no authority to place signs thereon and may not be held liable for failing to place them properly.”
In re Hinesburg Hannaford Act 250 Permit / In re Hinesburg Hannaford Site Plan Approval (Mary Beth Bowman, Appellants) (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 6087(b), because neither Hannaford nor the Town can install a traffic signal without the participation of VTrans, which is statutorily authorized to “[e]rect and maintain appropriate traffic control devices on state highways,” 19 V.S.A. § 10(7), but was not a party in the…”
Town of Grand Isle v. State of Vermont - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2018). “§ 309(b) dictates that “[a]ll work shall be done to the satisfaction of and in accordance with the requirements of the agency.” Further, VTrans is responsible for the construction of highways involving federal aid.”
Bitumar USA Inc. v. Vermont Agency of Transp. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014). “” 19 V.S.A. § 10(1); 3 For the same reason, the court finds that Bitumar has standing.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 10(1) — 4 cases
Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co. v. State, 693 A.2d 1045 (Vt. 1997). “” 19 V.S.A. § 10(1). It is authorized to award contracts on behalf of municipalities, and in such cases, “[a]ll work shall be done to the satisfaction of and in accordance with the requirements of the [Ajgency.”
Luck Bros. v. Agency of Transp., 2014 VT 59 (Vt. 2014). “Although the Agency is statutorily authorized to award contracts “on terms as it deems to be in the best interest of the state, for the construction, repair, or maintenance of transportation related facilities,” 19 V.S.A. § 10(1), Vermont statutes do not require the use of any…”
Town of Grand Isle v. State of Vermont - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2018). “§ 309(b) dictates that “[a]ll work shall be done to the satisfaction of and in accordance with the requirements of the agency.” Further, VTrans is responsible for the construction of highways involving federal aid.”
Bitumar USA Inc. v. Vermont Agency of Transp. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014). “” 19 V.S.A. § 10(1); 3 For the same reason, the court finds that Bitumar has standing.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 10(7) — 3 cases
In re Hinesburg Hannaford Act 250 Permit, 179 A.3d 727 (Vt. 2017). “§ 6087(b), because neither Hannaford nor the Town can install a traffic signal without the participation of VTrans, which is statutorily authorized to "[e]rect and maintain appropriate traffic control devices on State highways," 19 V.S.A. § 10(7), but was not a party in the…”
Peters v. State, 636 A.2d 340 (Vt. 1993). “Since the duty to erect appropriate signs on state roads is conferred on the Agency of Transportation only, 19 V.S.A. § 10(7), private individuals have no authority to place signs thereon and may not be held liable for failing to place them properly.”
In re Hinesburg Hannaford Act 250 Permit / In re Hinesburg Hannaford Site Plan Approval (Mary Beth Bowman, Appellants) (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017). “§ 6087(b), because neither Hannaford nor the Town can install a traffic signal without the participation of VTrans, which is statutorily authorized to “[e]rect and maintain appropriate traffic control devices on state highways,” 19 V.S.A. § 10(7), but was not a party in the…”
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.