Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 28 Chapter 7
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 502 (2026)

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

Subchapter 003 : ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE

(Cite as: 28 V.S.A. § 502)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1988–2017 · leading case: In re Blow, 2013 VT 75 (Vt. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Blow, 2013 VT 75 (Vt. 2013). “See 28 V.S.A. § 502(a) (“The board shall consider all pertinent information regarding an inmate in order to determine the inmate’s eligibility for parole.”
In re Douglas Cavett (Vt. 2017). · cites it 2× “” The court concluded, however, that the Board’s statutory requirement was to consider “all pertinent information,” 28 V.S.A. § 502(a), not necessarily every document brought to hearing, and that the allegations were insufficient to show a statutory or due process violation, to…”
LaFrance v. Rampone, 678 F. Supp. 72 (D. Vt. 1988). “” 28 V.S.A. § 502(b). As parole board members are not necessarily trained in the law, and the rules of evidence do not apply at eligibility hearings, information that might be challenged as inappropriate for consideration at sentencing might be considered at the parole hearing.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 502(a) — 2 cases
In re Blow, 2013 VT 75 (Vt. 2013). “See 28 V.S.A. § 502(a) (“The board shall consider all pertinent information regarding an inmate in order to determine the inmate’s eligibility for parole.”
In re Douglas Cavett (Vt. 2017). “” The court concluded, however, that the Board’s statutory requirement was to consider “all pertinent information,” 28 V.S.A. § 502(a), not necessarily every document brought to hearing, and that the allegations were insufficient to show a statutory or due process violation, to…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 502(b) — 1 case
LaFrance v. Rampone, 678 F. Supp. 72 (D. Vt. 1988). “” 28 V.S.A. § 502(b). As parole board members are not necessarily trained in the law, and the rules of evidence do not apply at eligibility hearings, information that might be challenged as inappropriate for consideration at sentencing might be considered at the parole hearing.”
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.