Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 740 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 004 : PETITION TO SUPERIOR COURT

(Cite as: 19 V.S.A. § 740)

§ 740. Petition

(a) When a person owning or interested in lands through which a highway is laid out, altered, or resurveyed by selectboard members objects to the necessity of taking the land, or is dissatisfied with the laying out, altering, or resurveying of the highway, or with the compensation for damages, he or she may appeal, in accordance with Rule 74 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure, to the Superior Court in the same county, or in either county when the highway or bridge is in two counties. Any number of aggrieved persons may join in the appeal. The appeal shall be filed within 30 days after the order of the selectboard members on the highway is recorded. If the appeal is taken from the appraisal of damages only, the selectboard members may proceed with the work as though no appeal had been taken. Each of the appellants shall be entitled to a trial by jury on the question of damages.

(b) The words “necessity” and “damages” as used in this section shall have the same definition as set forth in chapter 5 of this title. (Added 1985, No. 269 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; amended 1997, No. 161 (Adj. Sess.), § 12, eff. Jan. 1, 1998; 2005, No. 178 (Adj. Sess.), § 5.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1990–2020 · leading case: Demarest v. Town of Underhill, 87 A.3d 439 (Vt. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Demarest v. Town of Underhill, 87 A.3d 439 (Vt. 2013). · cites it 9× “74 and 19 V.S.A. § 740. Section 740(a) provides, in relevant part, that: [w]hen a person owning or interested in lands through which a highway is laid out, altered, or resurveyed by selectboard members, objects to the necessity of taking the land, or is dissatisfied with the…”

Ketchum v. Town of Dorset, 2011 VT 49 (Vt. 2011). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs appealed the decision, citing Rule of Civil Procedure 74 and 19 V.S.A. § 740. Rule 74 allows a party to appeal from a decision of a “state board, commission, department or officer” when “any party is entitled by statute to seek review.”

Munson v. City of South Burlington, 648 A.2d 867 (Vt. 1994). · cites it 3× “The second question we must address is whether plaintiff may challenge the project’s necessity, enjoin the project, and seek damages under 19 V.S.A. § 740, even though the time for such a challenge has run.”

Friends of Pine Street d/b/a Pine Street Coalition v. City of Burlington, 2020 VT 43 (Vt. 2020). · cites it 5× “Second, the City argues that 19 V.S.A. § 740 does not authorize the Coalition to appeal the City’s necessity determination to a court.”

Demarest & Moulton v. Town of Underhill, 195 Vt. 204 (Vt. 2013). · cites it 9× “74 and 19 V.S.A. § 740. Section 740 provides, in relevant part, that: [w]hen a person owning or interested in lands through which a highway is laid out, altered, or resurveyed by selectboard members, objects to the necessity of taking the land, or is dissatisfied with the laying…”

Neil & Barbara Shepard Dorset Street Proj., 584 A.2d 421 (Vt. 1990). “The Shepards petitioned the superior court for relief from that order, 19 V.S.A. § 740, and the superior court appointed three commissioners to hear evidence.”

Fortieth Burlington, LLC v. City of Burlington, 2020 VT 45 (Vt. 2020). “Here, the question is whether Fortieth can appeal under the statute which grants a right to persons “owning or interested in lands through which a highway is laid out, altered, or 5 resurveyed.”

David Massey v. Town of Greensboro (Vt. 2015). “Massey appealed the Town’s decision to the superior court, as authorized by 19 V.S.A. §740(a) and in accordance with Rule 74 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Gabriel v. Town of Duxbury, 764 A.2d 1224 (Vt. 2000). “Although this motion is dated as filed October 18, 1999, the envelope appears to be postmarked October 5,1999.”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 740(a) — 4 cases

Ketchum v. Town of Dorset, 2011 VT 49 (Vt. 2011). “Plaintiffs appealed the decision, citing Rule of Civil Procedure 74 and 19 V.S.A. § 740. Rule 74 allows a party to appeal from a decision of a “state board, commission, department or officer” when “any party is entitled by statute to seek review.”

Friends of Pine Street d/b/a Pine Street Coalition v. City of Burlington, 2020 VT 43 (Vt. 2020). “Second, the City argues that 19 V.S.A. § 740 does not authorize the Coalition to appeal the City’s necessity determination to a court.”

Fortieth Burlington, LLC v. City of Burlington, 2020 VT 45 (Vt. 2020). “Here, the question is whether Fortieth can appeal under the statute which grants a right to persons “owning or interested in lands through which a highway is laid out, altered, or 5 resurveyed.”

David Massey v. Town of Greensboro (Vt. 2015). “Massey appealed the Town’s decision to the superior court, as authorized by 19 V.S.A. §740(a) and in accordance with Rule 74 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure.”

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.