Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1353 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Subchapter 001 : GENERAL BENEFITS

(Cite as: 21 V.S.A. § 1353)

§ 1353. Collateral use prohibited

Any determination, redetermination, finding of fact, conclusion of law, decision, final order, or final judgment entered or made by a claims adjudicator or other authorized representative of the Commissioner, an appeals referee, the Employment Security Board, or a court of competent jurisdiction in any type of proceeding under this chapter is binding only between the Department and all parties in that proceeding and is not binding, conclusive, or admissible in any separate or subsequent action between an individual and his or her present or former employer brought before an arbitrator, court, or judge of this State or of the United States, regardless of whether the prior proceeding was between the same or related parties or involved the same facts. (Added 1989, No. 132 (Adj. Sess.), § 7.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1961–2012 · leading case: Willard v. Vermont Unemployment Comp. Comm'n, 173 A.2d 843 (Vt. 1961).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Willard v. Vermont Unemployment Comp. Comm'n, 173 A.2d 843 (Vt. 1961). · cites it 3× “When his claim was turned down there he filed a petition for review in the Brattleboro Municipal Court under the provisions of 21 V.S.A. §1353. After hearing,, the court made findings and issued its judgment order allowing the claim for unemployment compensation.”

Shaddy v. Brattleboro Retreat, 2012 VT 67 (Vt. 2012). · cites it 2× “Last, plaintiff submits that under 21 V.S.A. § 1353 the disposition of his unemployment compensation proceeding before the Department of Labor cannot bar his suit.”

Nurmi v. Vermont Emp. Sec. Bd., 197 A.2d 483 (Vt. 1963). · cites it 2× “The claimants then filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition of Review with the Brattleboro Municipal Court under the provisions of 21 V.S.A. § 1353. Hearing was held thereon, and upon facts agreed upon by the parties, the court issued its findings and judgment order reversing the…”

In Re Moore, 269 A.2d 853 (Vt. 1970). · cites it 2× “” Previous to July 11, 1961, a dissatisfied claimant had the right under 21 V.S.A. § 1353 within ten days after the decision of the Board to petition the municipal or chancery court for a review on his claim for benefits.”

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.