(a) Each party state may make one or more contracts with any one or more of the other
party states for the confinement of inmates on behalf of a sending state in institutions
situated within receiving states. Any such contract shall provide for:
(1) Its duration.
(2) Payments to be made to the receiving state by the sending state for inmate maintenance,
extraordinary medical and dental expenses, and any participation in or receipt by
inmates of rehabilitative or correctional services, facilities, programs, or treatment
not reasonably included as part of normal maintenance.
(3) Participation in programs of inmate employment, if any; the disposition or crediting
of any payments received by inmates on account thereof; and the crediting of proceeds
from or disposal of any products resulting therefrom.
(4) Delivery and retaking of inmates.
(5) Such other matters as may be necessary and appropriate to fix the obligations, responsibilities
and rights of the sending and receiving states.
(b) The terms and provisions of this compact shall be a part of any contract entered into
by the authority of or pursuant thereto, and nothing in any such contract shall be
inconsistent therewith. (Added 1969, No. 13, § 1, eff. Feb. 28, 1969.)
Nichols, Wool v. Hofmann, 2010 VT 36 (Vt. 2010). “3 The Compact, codified at 28 V.S.A. §§ 1601-1621, governs contracts between states “for the confinement of inmates on behalf of a sending state in institutions situated within receiving states.”
Daye v. State, 769 A.2d 630 (2000). · cites it 2דFirst they argue that the Compact, which authorizes contracts only with “party states,” 28 V.S.A. § 1603, circumscribes the Commissioner’s authority to transfer prisoners out of state and, therefore, that the agreement with the County of Monmouth, a political subdivision of the…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 1603(a) — 1 case
Nichols, Wool v. Hofmann, 2010 VT 36 (Vt. 2010). “3 The Compact, codified at 28 V.S.A. §§ 1601-1621, governs contracts between states “for the confinement of inmates on behalf of a sending state in institutions situated within receiving states.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 1603(a)(5) — 1 case
Daye v. State, 769 A.2d 630 (2000). “First they argue that the Compact, which authorizes contracts only with “party states,” 28 V.S.A. § 1603, circumscribes the Commissioner’s authority to transfer prisoners out of state and, therefore, that the agreement with the County of Monmouth, a political subdivision of the…”
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.