Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 30 Chapter 3
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 112 (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. § 112)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1974–2017 · leading case: In re Vermont Gas Sys., Inc. (William Marks, Nancy Baker, Linda Gage, Rachael Smolker, Melanie Pulley, Stephanie Spencer, & Lawrence Shelton, Appellants), 174 A.3d 1253 (Vt. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Vermont Gas Sys., Inc. (William Marks, Nancy Baker, Linda Gage, Rachael Smolker, Melanie Pulley, Stephanie Spencer, & Lawrence Shelton, Appellants), 174 A.3d 1253 (Vt. 2017). · cites it 13× “First, the Board determined that VGS had satisfied the requirements of 30 V.S.A. § 112. It concluded that the condemnation was reasonably necessary pursuant to § 112(a)(2) so that VGS could provide adequate natural gas service in Addison and Chittenden counties.”
Vermont Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. Bandel, 375 A.2d 975 (Vt. 1977). · cites it 7× “§ 248 proceedings and under 30 V.S.A. § 112 hearings yet to be held was rejected.”
Grice v. Vermont Elec. Power Co., Inc., 2008 VT 64 (Vt. 2008). · cites it 2× “” 30 V.S.A. § 112. The Grices interpret this requirement as authorizing the Board to adjudicate condemnation proceedings only in cases where the energy passing through the lines will be directly regulated by the Board.”
In Re Cent. Vermont Pub. Serv. Corp., 2010 VT 7 (Vt. 2010). · cites it 2× “In March 2008, Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (CVPS) filed a petition under 30 V.S.A. § 112 with the Board to condemn a corridor on landowner’s property to extend utility lines to the property of a neighbor who intended to build a home there.”
Auclair v. Vermont Elec. Power Co., Inc., 329 A.2d 641 (Vt. 1974). · cites it 2× “On May 29,1974, the Superior Court in a memorandum of decision, found that due process of law required that plaintiffs be given notice of and opportunity to appear in the Section 248 hearing in order to be able later to effectively participate in the condemnation hearing…”
City of So. Burlington v. Vermont Elec. Power Co., Inc., 344 A.2d 19 (Vt. 1975). “Individual notice we held to be mandated in a condemnation procedure under 30 V.S.A. § 112, but not for a planning and policy hearing under § 248.”
Auclair v. Vermont Elec. Power Co., Inc., 323 A.2d 578 (Vt. 1974). “§ 248 and 30 V.S.A. § 112, the irreparable damage involved in the expense of contesting it only once is not apparent.”
In re Vermont Gas Sys., Inc. (William Marks, Nancy Baker, Linda Gage, Rachael Smolker, Melanie Pulley, Stephanie Spencer, & Lawrence Shelton, Appellants), 2017 VT 83 (Vt. 2017). · cites it 6× “First, the Board determined that VGS had satisfied the requirements of 30 V.S.A. § 112. It concluded that the condemnation was reasonably necessary pursuant to § 112(a)(2) so that VGS could provide adequate natural gas service in Addison and Chittenden counties.”
Grice v. Vermont Elec. Power Co., Inc. (Vt. 2008). · cites it 2× “” 30 V.S.A. § 112. The Grices interpret this requirement as authorizing the Board to adjudicate condemnation proceedings only in cases where the energy passing through the lines will be directly regulated by the Board.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 112(2) — 2 cases
Vermont Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. Bandel, 375 A.2d 975 (Vt. 1977). “§ 248 proceedings and under 30 V.S.A. § 112 hearings yet to be held was rejected.”
Auclair v. Vermont Elec. Power Co., Inc., 329 A.2d 641 (Vt. 1974). “On May 29,1974, the Superior Court in a memorandum of decision, found that due process of law required that plaintiffs be given notice of and opportunity to appear in the Section 248 hearing in order to be able later to effectively participate in the condemnation hearing…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 112(3) — 1 case
Vermont Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. Bandel, 375 A.2d 975 (Vt. 1977). “§ 248 proceedings and under 30 V.S.A. § 112 hearings yet to be held was rejected.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 112(4) — 1 case
In Re Cent. Vermont Pub. Serv. Corp., 2010 VT 7 (Vt. 2010). “In March 2008, Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (CVPS) filed a petition under 30 V.S.A. § 112 with the Board to condemn a corridor on landowner’s property to extend utility lines to the property of a neighbor who intended to build a home there.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 112(a)(2) — 2 cases
In re Vermont Gas Sys., Inc. (William Marks, Nancy Baker, Linda Gage, Rachael Smolker, Melanie Pulley, Stephanie Spencer, & Lawrence Shelton, Appellants), 174 A.3d 1253 (Vt. 2017). “First, the Board determined that VGS had satisfied the requirements of 30 V.S.A. § 112. It concluded that the condemnation was reasonably necessary pursuant to § 112(a)(2) so that VGS could provide adequate natural gas service in Addison and Chittenden counties.”
In re Vermont Gas Sys., Inc. (William Marks, Nancy Baker, Linda Gage, Rachael Smolker, Melanie Pulley, Stephanie Spencer, & Lawrence Shelton, Appellants), 2017 VT 83 (Vt. 2017). “First, the Board determined that VGS had satisfied the requirements of 30 V.S.A. § 112. It concluded that the condemnation was reasonably necessary pursuant to § 112(a)(2) so that VGS could provide adequate natural gas service in Addison and Chittenden counties.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 112(a)(3) — 2 cases
In re Vermont Gas Sys., Inc. (William Marks, Nancy Baker, Linda Gage, Rachael Smolker, Melanie Pulley, Stephanie Spencer, & Lawrence Shelton, Appellants), 174 A.3d 1253 (Vt. 2017). “First, the Board determined that VGS had satisfied the requirements of 30 V.S.A. § 112. It concluded that the condemnation was reasonably necessary pursuant to § 112(a)(2) so that VGS could provide adequate natural gas service in Addison and Chittenden counties.”
In re Vermont Gas Sys., Inc. (William Marks, Nancy Baker, Linda Gage, Rachael Smolker, Melanie Pulley, Stephanie Spencer, & Lawrence Shelton, Appellants), 2017 VT 83 (Vt. 2017). “First, the Board determined that VGS had satisfied the requirements of 30 V.S.A. § 112. It concluded that the condemnation was reasonably necessary pursuant to § 112(a)(2) so that VGS could provide adequate natural gas service in Addison and Chittenden counties.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 112(a)(4) — 1 case
In re Vermont Gas Sys., Inc. (William Marks, Nancy Baker, Linda Gage, Rachael Smolker, Melanie Pulley, Stephanie Spencer, & Lawrence Shelton, Appellants), 174 A.3d 1253 (Vt. 2017). “First, the Board determined that VGS had satisfied the requirements of 30 V.S.A. § 112. It concluded that the condemnation was reasonably necessary pursuant to § 112(a)(2) so that VGS could provide adequate natural gas service in Addison and Chittenden counties.”
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.