Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 108 (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: 30 V.S.A. § 108)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1981–1987 · leading case: In Re Vermont Pub. Power Supply Auth., 440 A.2d 140 (Vt. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Vermont Pub. Power Supply Auth., 440 A.2d 140 (Vt. 1981). · cites it 3× “VPPSA says that it did not seek or obtain the approval of the Board, pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 108, before it negotiated the loan and signed the six-million-dollar note because it did not believe that statute applied to VPPSA.”
Town of Cavendish v. Vermont Pub. Power Supply Auth., 446 A.2d 792 (Vt. 1982). “First, the Town challenged a $6,000,000 loan obtained by the Authority as improper under 30 V.S.A. § 108(a). Second, the petition attacked the validity of a contract signed by the Authority, which provided for the purchase of forty per cent ownership in the proposed Black River…”
In Re Consol. Rate Appeals of Green Mountain Power Corp., 455 A.2d 823 (Vt. 1983). “30 V.S.A. § 108 lets a utility borrow in such fashion so long as such debt does not exceed 20 % of the utility’s total assets.”
In Re Green Mountain Power Corp., 532 A.2d 582 (Vt. 1987). “GMP originally brought the case before the Public Service Board seeking a declaratory ruling that its lease-back of the properties does not require Board approval under 30 V.S.A. § 108 or any other statute. In the event the Board ruled otherwise, GMP also asked for the Board’s…”
In re Vermont Elec. Generation & Transmission Coop., Inc., 502 A.2d 841 (Vt. 1985). “and a finding of the board that the proposed action will be consistent with the general good of the state.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 108(a) — 3 cases
Town of Cavendish v. Vermont Pub. Power Supply Auth., 446 A.2d 792 (Vt. 1982). “First, the Town challenged a $6,000,000 loan obtained by the Authority as improper under 30 V.S.A. § 108(a). Second, the petition attacked the validity of a contract signed by the Authority, which provided for the purchase of forty per cent ownership in the proposed Black River…”
In Re Vermont Pub. Power Supply Auth., 440 A.2d 140 (Vt. 1981). “VPPSA says that it did not seek or obtain the approval of the Board, pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 108, before it negotiated the loan and signed the six-million-dollar note because it did not believe that statute applied to VPPSA.”
In re Vermont Elec. Generation & Transmission Coop., Inc., 502 A.2d 841 (Vt. 1985). “and a finding of the board that the proposed action will be consistent with the general good of the state.”
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.