Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 502 (2026)

Authority; precondemnation hearing

✓ 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. § 502)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: State v. Kreth, 553 A.2d 554 (Vt. 1988).
State v. Kreth, 553 A.2d 554 (Vt. 1988). · cites it 2× “19 V.S.A. § 502(a) confers on the Agency of Transportation, upon request of the Transportation Board, the right to enter private lands for "the purpose of examination and making necessary surveys" in connection with highway projects.”
In re Champlain Parkway SW Discharge Permit (Fortieth Burlington, LLC, Appellant), 2021 VT 34 (Vt. 2021). · cites it 4× “Specifically, it argues that these activities were not begun by that date because certain right-of-way plans mandated by the 2012 Vermont Agency of Transportation’s Right-of-Way Manual (VTrans Manual) were not completed until April 2018 and a necessity hearing required under 19…”
In Re Munson Earth Moving Corp., 737 A.2d 906 (Vt. 1999). “, fifteen years from the date of condemnation, see 19 V.S.A. § 502(e), together with the legislative commitment to provide funding for the project, as evinced by 1985, No.”
In Re Chittenden Solid Waste Dist., 657 A.2d 197 (Vt. 1995). “In response to an argument that the highway board’s public hearing and findings were subject to judicial review, we stated: When the appellants complain of the alleged inadequacy of the investigation and the failure of the highway board to make findings, they mistake the nature…”
Vermont Agency of Transp. v. Mazza, 632 A.2d 363 (Vt. 1993). “Defendant argues that plaintiff, the Vermont Agency of Transportation, failed to show that construction would be commenced within fifteen years from the date of acquisition, as required by 19 V.S.A. § 502(e). We affirm. The sole evidence on the question came from the project…”
mongeon bay props v. colchester (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “Mongeon also points out that the legislature explicitly exempted the Agency of Transportation from subdivision reviews for its takings under 19 V.S.A. § 502: “The Agency’s acquisition of property pursuant to this chapter, whether by condemnation or conveyance in lieu of…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 502(a) — 1 case
State v. Kreth, 553 A.2d 554 (Vt. 1988). “19 V.S.A. § 502(a) confers on the Agency of Transportation, upon request of the Transportation Board, the right to enter private lands for "the purpose of examination and making necessary surveys" in connection with highway projects.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 502(c) — 1 case
In re Champlain Parkway SW Discharge Permit (Fortieth Burlington, LLC, Appellant), 2021 VT 34 (Vt. 2021). “Specifically, it argues that these activities were not begun by that date because certain right-of-way plans mandated by the 2012 Vermont Agency of Transportation’s Right-of-Way Manual (VTrans Manual) were not completed until April 2018 and a necessity hearing required under 19…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 502(c)(1) — 1 case
In re Champlain Parkway SW Discharge Permit (Fortieth Burlington, LLC, Appellant), 2021 VT 34 (Vt. 2021). “Specifically, it argues that these activities were not begun by that date because certain right-of-way plans mandated by the 2012 Vermont Agency of Transportation’s Right-of-Way Manual (VTrans Manual) were not completed until April 2018 and a necessity hearing required under 19…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 502(e) — 2 cases
In Re Munson Earth Moving Corp., 737 A.2d 906 (Vt. 1999). “, fifteen years from the date of condemnation, see 19 V.S.A. § 502(e), together with the legislative commitment to provide funding for the project, as evinced by 1985, No.”
Vermont Agency of Transp. v. Mazza, 632 A.2d 363 (Vt. 1993). “Defendant argues that plaintiff, the Vermont Agency of Transportation, failed to show that construction would be commenced within fifteen years from the date of acquisition, as required by 19 V.S.A. § 502(e). We affirm. The sole evidence on the question came from the project…”
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.