A roadway width of one and one-half rods on each side of the center of the existing
traveled way can be assumed and controlled for highway purposes whenever the original
survey was not properly recorded, or the records preserved, or if the terminations
and boundaries cannot be determined. (Added 1985, No. 269 (Adj. Sess.), § 1.)
Town of South Hero v. Wood, 2006 VT 28 (Vt. 2006). · cites it 4ד¶ 15. When, as here, the boundaries of a road are not properly recorded, 4 the law presumes a roadway width of “one and one half rods on each side of the center of the existing traveled way.”
Town of Ludlow v. Watson, 571 A.2d 67 (Vt. 1990). · cites it 4דThe trial court found, and all the parties agree, that because the terminations and boundaries of the roadway cannot be determined from the original survey, this dispute is controlled by 19 V.S.A. § 32, which assumes a roadway width of one and one-half rods on either side of the…”
Kirkland v. Kolodziej, 199 Vt. 606 (Vt. 2016). “The trial court noted that 19 V.S.A. § 32 had been used in Town of Ludlow v.”
Brice Kirkland & Gordon Kirkland v. James Kolodziej & Barbara Kolodziej, 2015 VT 90 (Vt. 2015). · cites it 2דt the outset, or on account of later misfiling, or because they were lost or misappropriated”; (2) it concluded that both segments of Petty Road 10 had been discontinued as a public highway in 1842 and reinstated in 1843 and that the act of reinstatement met the statutory…”
Gilmour v. State, 450 A.2d 1153 (Vt. 1982). “19 V.S.A. § 32 provides: When by existing statute a duty or liability is imposed upon or power granted to a town or any officer thereof with reference to highways or the laying out, construction, maintenance or the discontinuance of the same, including the provisions of chapters…”
Doran v. West Haven (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “at 90 (distinguishing Newton on the same grounds and finding acceptance based on general road maintenance work). Accordingly, therefore, Plaintiffs proved at trial that Upper River Road has been established as a public road by common-law dedication and acceptance.”
Simonds Constr. Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015). “For the purposes of the 200’ frontage requirement, and giving effect to the stated purpose of that requirement as it relates to lot 5 dimensions and density of development, the Court concludes that Applicant has satisfied this road frontage requirement.”
Huntington NOV Appeal (Vt. Super. Ct. 2008). “The 2006 notice alleged that Appellant was allowing “a commercial enterprise [to be operated on the Property] without benefit of permit, including, but not limited to, parking vehicles offered for sale within the Vermont highway right-of way [sic] of Route 25B.” We hereinafter…”
Morris 7-Lot Subdivision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2007). “11 19 V.S.A. §§ 32 and 702. Section 6.4(A) establishes the applicability of the road standards found in the remaining subsections of § 6.”
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.