Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 1604 (2026)

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

Subchapter 001 : THE COMPACT

(Cite as: 28 V.S.A. § 1604)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2000–2019 · leading case: Nichols, Wool v. Hofmann, 2010 VT 36 (Vt. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nichols, Wool v. Hofmann, 2010 VT 36 (Vt. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 28 V.S.A. § 1604(e). We decline to adopt the State’s position.”
State v. Bryan L. Perrault, 173 A.3d 335 (Vt. 2017). “See 28 V.S.A. § 1604(c) ("Inmates confined in an institution pursuant to the terms of this [interstate] compact shall at all times be subject to the jurisdiction of the sending state .”
Daye v. State, 769 A.2d 630 (2000). · cites it 3× “” 28 V.S.A.§ 1604(a). Inmates so transferred remain “subject to the jurisdiction of the sending state,” which may at any time remove the prisoner for transfer to an institution within the sending state or to another institution with which the sending state may have a contractual…”
Gundlah v. Pallito (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). · cites it 4× “28 V.S.A. § 1604(c). The receiving state exercises primary supervision over the transferred inmate on day-to-day matters.”
Jeffrey-Michael Brandt, 2019 VT 32 (Vt. 2019). “After entering the Stipulation, DOC transferred plaintiff to a state-run facility in Pennsylvania.”
In re Anthony John Palubicki (Vt. 2015). “28 V.S.A. § 1604(c), (e). Accordingly, petitioner must challenge his conviction in the state where he was * The Vermont Prisoner’s Rights Office forwarded petitioner’s complaint to the Minnesota public defender’s office, which denied representation because petitioner had been…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 1604(a) — 1 case
Daye v. State, 769 A.2d 630 (2000). “” 28 V.S.A.§ 1604(a). Inmates so transferred remain “subject to the jurisdiction of the sending state,” which may at any time remove the prisoner for transfer to an institution within the sending state or to another institution with which the sending state may have a contractual…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 1604(c) — 3 cases
State v. Bryan L. Perrault, 173 A.3d 335 (Vt. 2017). “See 28 V.S.A. § 1604(c) ("Inmates confined in an institution pursuant to the terms of this [interstate] compact shall at all times be subject to the jurisdiction of the sending state .”
In re Anthony John Palubicki (Vt. 2015). “28 V.S.A. § 1604(c), (e). Accordingly, petitioner must challenge his conviction in the state where he was * The Vermont Prisoner’s Rights Office forwarded petitioner’s complaint to the Minnesota public defender’s office, which denied representation because petitioner had been…”
Gundlah v. Pallito (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). “28 V.S.A. § 1604(c). The receiving state exercises primary supervision over the transferred inmate on day-to-day matters.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 1604(e) — 3 cases
Nichols, Wool v. Hofmann, 2010 VT 36 (Vt. 2010). “” 28 V.S.A. § 1604(e). We decline to adopt the State’s position.”
Gundlah v. Pallito (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). “28 V.S.A. § 1604(c). The receiving state exercises primary supervision over the transferred inmate on day-to-day matters.”
Jeffrey-Michael Brandt, 2019 VT 32 (Vt. 2019). “After entering the Stipulation, DOC transferred plaintiff to a state-run facility in Pennsylvania.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 1604(f) — 1 case
Daye v. State, 769 A.2d 630 (2000). “” 28 V.S.A.§ 1604(a). Inmates so transferred remain “subject to the jurisdiction of the sending state,” which may at any time remove the prisoner for transfer to an institution within the sending state or to another institution with which the sending state may have a contractual…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 1604(g) — 1 case
Gundlah v. Pallito (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). “28 V.S.A. § 1604(c). The receiving state exercises primary supervision over the transferred inmate on day-to-day matters.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 1604(i) — 1 case
Daye v. State, 769 A.2d 630 (2000). “” 28 V.S.A.§ 1604(a). Inmates so transferred remain “subject to the jurisdiction of the sending state,” which may at any time remove the prisoner for transfer to an institution within the sending state or to another institution with which the sending state may have a contractual…”
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.