Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 26 Chapter 1
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 26, § 82 (2026)

Confidential communications

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 005 : PROPERTY; TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE

(Cite as: 26 V.S.A. § 82)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1998–2005 · leading case: Colorado State Bd. of Acct. v. Zaveral Boosalis Raisch, 960 P.2d 102 (Colo. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Colorado State Bd. of Acct. v. Zaveral Boosalis Raisch, 960 P.2d 102 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 2× “63, § 9.11a (West 1996 & Supp. 1997); R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-3.”
Watson v. Dimke, 2005 VT 29, 872 A.2d 337. · cites it 9× “” Even assuming that at least part of the information that defendants held was confidential and thereby covered under 26 V.S.A. § 82, the court explained that the receipt of a subpoena by a litigant in a civil suit constituted a requirement to disclose under legal process.”
Watson v. Dimke, No. S1497 (Vt. Super. Ct. Apr. 5, 2004). · cites it 5× “This kind of privilege-lite does not have the support of 26 V.S.A. § 82 or the facts involved in this case.”
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 26, § 82(a): 2 cases
Watson v. Dimke, 2005 VT 29, 872 A.2d 337. “” Even assuming that at least part of the information that defendants held was confidential and thereby covered under 26 V.S.A. § 82, the court explained that the receipt of a subpoena by a litigant in a civil suit constituted a requirement to disclose under legal process.”
Watson v. Dimke, No. S1497 (Vt. Super. Ct. Apr. 5, 2004). “This kind of privilege-lite does not have the support of 26 V.S.A. § 82 or the facts involved in this case.”
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.