Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 709 (2026)

Rules of construction

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(Cite as: 21 V.S.A. § 709)

§ 709. Rules of construction

In construing the provisions of this chapter, the rule of law that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed shall not be applied. The provisions of this chapter shall be so interpreted and construed as to effect its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states that enact it.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1980–2008 · leading case: Smith v. Desautels, 2008 VT 17 (Vt. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Smith v. Desautels, 2008 VT 17 (Vt. 2008). · cites it 2× “" 21 V.S.A. § 709; see Kittell v. Vt. Weatherboard, Inc.”

Kittell v. Vermont Weatherboard, Inc., 417 A.2d 926 (Vt. 1980). “21 V.S.A. § 709. The fact that workmen’s compensation is in derogation of common-law remedies is not, therefore, grounds for limiting the scope of the Act.”

Butler v. Huttig Bldg. Prods., 2003 VT 48 (Vt. 2003). “2 First, temporary disability benefits, whether partial or total, terminate once the worker’s disability ends.”

Candido v. Polymers, Inc., 687 A.2d 476 (Vt. 1996). “12, at 8-515, 8-524, 8-528, 8-532; see 21 V.S.A. § 709 (statute shall be interpreted “to effect its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it”).”

Buote v. Verizon New England, 190 F. Supp. 2d 693 (D. Vt. 2002). “See Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 709 (1987) (setting aside the rule of strict construction for statutes in derogation of the common law in the case of the VWCA); Kittell v.”

Sienkiewycz v. Dressell, 561 A.2d 415 (Vt. 1989). “21 V.S.A. § 709 expressly sets aside the rule of strict construction for statutes in derogation of the common law.”

Samaha Ex Rel. Est. of Lavigne v. Scott's Constr., Inc., 543 F. Supp. 2d 341 (D. Vt. 2008). “21 V.S.A. § 709. In construing the provisions of the Act, courts should weigh the consequences of their decisions.”

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.