Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 1206 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(Cite as: 24 V.S.A. § 1206)

§ 1206. Evidence

(a) All testimony of parties and witnesses must be made under oath or affirmation.

(b) Irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. The rules of evidence as applied in civil cases in the Superior Courts of this State shall be followed. When necessary to ascertain facts not reasonably susceptible of proof under those rules, evidence not admissible under those rules may be admitted if it is of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent people in the conduct of their affairs.

(c) When a hearing will be expedited and the interests of the parties will not be prejudiced substantially, any part of the evidence may be received in written form, to expedite the presentation of direct testimony of a witness, provided the witness is available for direct testimony and cross-examination at the hearing on this evidence.

(d) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, if the original is not readily available. Upon request, parties shall be given an opportunity to compare the copy with the original. (Added 1993, No. 232 (Adj. Sess.), § 44, eff. March 15, 1995.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case: Friends of Pine Street d/b/a Pine Street Coalition v. City of Burlington, 2020 VT 43 (Vt. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Friends of Pine Street d/b/a Pine Street Coalition v. City of Burlington, 2020 VT 43 (Vt. 2020). “See 24 V.S.A. § 1206 (providing requirements for contested hearings subject to VMAPA).”

Okemo Mountain Sch. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). · cites it 5× “24 V.S.A. § 1206. A DRB decision must state findings of fact “based exclusively on evidence of the record in the contested hearing,” and legal conclusions that are based on those findings of fact.”

Appeal of Tepper (Vt. Super. Ct. 2006). · cites it 4× “Of the issues presented in Appellant‐Applicants’ Statement of Questions, the parties have narrowed the contested issues to the following: (a) Did the DRB comply with the Vermont Municipal Administrative Procedures Act (the MAPA), specifically 24 V.S.A. § 1206, with respect to…”

Zaremba Grp. Dollar Gen. CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 3× “§ 1209(b);3 2) supporting findings of fact with evidence outside the record in violation of 24 V.S.A. §§ 1206(a);4 3) basing conclusions of law on findings of fact supported by evidence outside the record in violation of 24 V.”

Byrne Trust NOV (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). · cites it 3× “See 24 V.S.A. § 1206(a) (“All testimony of parties and witnesses must be made under oath or affirmation.”

Brandon Plaza Conditional Use Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 1204 and k the evidentiary rules established in 24 VSA § 1206. See 24 V..SA. 4471(b). Section 1206 requires such municipalities to follow the Vermont Rules of Evidence when addressing land use proposals See 24 V.”

53 North Pleasant Street Denial - Decision on Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “24 V.S.A. § 1206(b). The V.R.E. states that “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible .”

Stanion NOV (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017). “; 24 V.S.A. § 1206. A statement by an attorney 8 or a DRB member, or any other person who is not sworn in as a witness, is not evidence.”

Burris Zoning Permit Denial - Decision on the Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2018). “24 V.S.A. § 1206(b). Relevant evidence is generally admissible.”

P & R Assocs., LLC (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013). “§ 1205(c)) and the swearing in of witnesses 24 V.S.A. § 1206(a)). Although MAPA requires AMPs to give parties, including interested persons, an opportunity “to respond and present evidence and argument on all issues involved” (24 V.”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 1206(a) — 4 cases

Zaremba Grp. Dollar Gen. CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014). “§ 1209(b);3 2) supporting findings of fact with evidence outside the record in violation of 24 V.S.A. §§ 1206(a);4 3) basing conclusions of law on findings of fact supported by evidence outside the record in violation of 24 V.”

Byrne Trust NOV (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “See 24 V.S.A. § 1206(a) (“All testimony of parties and witnesses must be made under oath or affirmation.”

P & R Assocs., LLC (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013). “§ 1205(c)) and the swearing in of witnesses 24 V.S.A. § 1206(a)). Although MAPA requires AMPs to give parties, including interested persons, an opportunity “to respond and present evidence and argument on all issues involved” (24 V.”

Appeal of Tepper (Vt. Super. Ct. 2006). “Of the issues presented in Appellant‐Applicants’ Statement of Questions, the parties have narrowed the contested issues to the following: (a) Did the DRB comply with the Vermont Municipal Administrative Procedures Act (the MAPA), specifically 24 V.S.A. § 1206, with respect to…”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 1206(b) — 5 cases

Okemo Mountain Sch. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “24 V.S.A. § 1206. A DRB decision must state findings of fact “based exclusively on evidence of the record in the contested hearing,” and legal conclusions that are based on those findings of fact.”

53 North Pleasant Street Denial - Decision on Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “24 V.S.A. § 1206(b). The V.R.E. states that “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible .”

Burris Zoning Permit Denial - Decision on the Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2018). “24 V.S.A. § 1206(b). Relevant evidence is generally admissible.”

Brandon Plaza Conditional Use Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012). “§ 1204 and k the evidentiary rules established in 24 VSA § 1206. See 24 V..SA. 4471(b). Section 1206 requires such municipalities to follow the Vermont Rules of Evidence when addressing land use proposals See 24 V.”

Byrne Trust NOV (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “See 24 V.S.A. § 1206(a) (“All testimony of parties and witnesses must be made under oath or affirmation.”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 1206(c) — 2 cases

Appeal of Tepper (Vt. Super. Ct. 2006). “Of the issues presented in Appellant‐Applicants’ Statement of Questions, the parties have narrowed the contested issues to the following: (a) Did the DRB comply with the Vermont Municipal Administrative Procedures Act (the MAPA), specifically 24 V.S.A. § 1206, with respect to…”

Okemo Mountain Sch. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “24 V.S.A. § 1206. A DRB decision must state findings of fact “based exclusively on evidence of the record in the contested hearing,” and legal conclusions that are based on those findings of fact.”

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.