Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 23 Chapter 13
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, § 1025 (2026)

Standards

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 002 : TRAFFIC SIGNS, SIGNALS, AND MARKINGS

(Cite as: 23 V.S.A. § 1025)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1988–2019 · leading case: Matthew Ziniti v. New England Cent. R.R., Inc., 207 A.3d 463 (Vt. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Matthew Ziniti v. New England Cent. R.R., Inc., 207 A.3d 463 (Vt. 2019). “§ 3581(a) ; see also 23 V.S.A. § 1025(a) (providing that MUTCD "for streets and highways as amended shall be the standards for all traffic control signs, signals, and markings within the State"); 23 C.”
Lane v. State, 811 A.2d 190 (Vt. 2002). “More specifically, he alleges that once the State made the affirmative act of posting warning signs, it was then bound to both erect a warning sign at the accident site and to comply with the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on…”
McMurphy v. State, 757 A.2d 1043 (Vt. 2000). “See 23 V.S.A. § 1025. The Vermont Agency of Transportation drafted the design plans for this intersection in 1976 and 1977 following the standards set forth in MUTCD.”
Searles v. Agency of Transp., 762 A.2d 812 (Vt. 2000). “” 23 VS.A. § 1025(a). Thus, “[wjhen new traffic control devices are erected or placed or existing traffic control devices are replaced or repaired the equipment, design, method of installation, placement or repair shall conform with such standards.”
Johnson v. Agency of Transp., 2006 VT 37 (Vt. 2006). “23 V.S.A. § 1025(a); Fed. Highway Admin., U.”
In Re Agency of Transp., 596 A.2d 358 (Vt. 1991). “AOT challenges the authority of the Board to dictate the placement of traffic-control devices and, if the Board does have authority, it claims the Board must follow federal standards under 23 V.”
State v. Nichols, 556 A.2d 75 (Vt. 1988). “21(b), alleging that the failure to give his counsel notice of the refusal hearing denied him due process of law and that the failure to make an in-court identification of defendant as the operator invalidated the refusal hearing decision.”
Evans v. Town of Cabot (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2× “23 V.S.A. § 1025 (adopting the MUTCD as “the standards for all traffic control signs, signals, and markings within the State”).”
Johnson v. Agency of Transp. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). “23 V.S.A. § 1025. Because the MUTCD regulations grant Velander discretion as to the manner in which he performs maintenance work on traffic signals, the State argues, Velander’s conduct falls within the discretionary function exception to the Vermont Tort Claims Act.”
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, § 1025(a): 5 cases
Matthew Ziniti v. New England Cent. R.R., Inc., 207 A.3d 463 (Vt. 2019). “§ 3581(a) ; see also 23 V.S.A. § 1025(a) (providing that MUTCD "for streets and highways as amended shall be the standards for all traffic control signs, signals, and markings within the State"); 23 C.”
Lane v. State, 811 A.2d 190 (Vt. 2002). “More specifically, he alleges that once the State made the affirmative act of posting warning signs, it was then bound to both erect a warning sign at the accident site and to comply with the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on…”
Searles v. Agency of Transp., 762 A.2d 812 (Vt. 2000). “” 23 VS.A. § 1025(a). Thus, “[wjhen new traffic control devices are erected or placed or existing traffic control devices are replaced or repaired the equipment, design, method of installation, placement or repair shall conform with such standards.”
Johnson v. Agency of Transp., 2006 VT 37 (Vt. 2006). “23 V.S.A. § 1025(a); Fed. Highway Admin., U.”
State v. Nichols, 556 A.2d 75 (Vt. 1988). “21(b), alleging that the failure to give his counsel notice of the refusal hearing denied him due process of law and that the failure to make an in-court identification of defendant as the operator invalidated the refusal hearing decision.”
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.