Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 206 (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 : GENERAL PROVISIONS

(Cite as: 21 V.S.A. § 206)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case: kingsbury v. dept labor (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
kingsbury v. dept labor (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 7× “6 A discretionary inspection under 21 V.S.A. § 206(a) is not necessarily provoked by a complaint and thus has no analogous notice provision.”
Worthen v. Gaulin (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). “It does not allege retaliation as a result of her OSHA complaints.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 206(a) — 1 case
kingsbury v. dept labor (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “6 A discretionary inspection under 21 V.S.A. § 206(a) is not necessarily provoked by a complaint and thus has no analogous notice provision.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 206(f) — 2 cases
kingsbury v. dept labor (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “6 A discretionary inspection under 21 V.S.A. § 206(a) is not necessarily provoked by a complaint and thus has no analogous notice provision.”
Worthen v. Gaulin (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). “It does not allege retaliation as a result of her OSHA complaints.”
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.