Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 1142 (2026)

Probate judges

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 004 : JUDGES AND COURT APPOINTEES

(Cite as: 32 V.S.A. § 1142)

§ 1142. Probate judges

(a) The Probate judges in the several Probate Districts shall be entitled to receive the following annual salaries, which shall be paid by the State in lieu of all fees or other compensation:

	Annual	Annual
	Salary	Salary
	as of	as of
	July 14, 2024	July 13,
	July 14, 2024	2025
(1) Addison	$76,555	$80,689
(2) Bennington	$96,776	102,002
(3) Caledonia	$67,891	$71,557
(4) Chittenden	$161,506	$170,227
(5) Essex	$18,966	$19,990
(6) Franklin	$76,555	$80,689
(7) Grand Isle	$18,966	$19,990
(8) Lamoille	$53,443	$56,329
(9) Orange	$63,554	$66,986
(10) Orleans	$62,110	$65,464
(11) Rutland	$137,221	$144,631
(12) Washington	$105,441	$111,135
(13) Windham	$85,221	$89,823
(14) Windsor	$115,555	$121,795

(b) Probate judges shall be entitled to be paid by the State for their actual and necessary expenses under the rules pertaining to classified State employees. The compensation for the Probate judge of the Chittenden District shall be for full-time service.

(c) All Probate judges, regardless of the number of hours worked annually, shall be eligible to participate in all employee benefits that are available to exempt employees of the Judicial Department. (Amended 1961, No. 278, § 1, eff. Aug. 1, 1961; 1965, No. 195, § 2; 1967, No. 339 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; 1969, No. 294 (Adj. Sess.), § 14; 1971, No. 105, § 2; 1973, No. 117, § 5; 1973, No. 154 (Adj. Sess.), § 2, eff. March 15, 1974; 1973, No. 266 (Adj. Sess.), § 20; 1975, No. 118, § 94, eff. April 30, 1975; 1977, No. 109, § 19, eff. July 3, 1977; 1977, No. 222 (Adj. Sess.), § 7, eff. July 2, 1978; 1979, No. 59, § 3; 1979, No. 141 (Adj. Sess.), § 11; 1981, No. 91, § 8, eff. July 5, 1981; 1981, No. 249 (Adj. Sess.), § 15, eff. July 4, 1982; 1983, No. 88, § 4, eff. July 3, 1983; 1983, No. 243 (Adj. Sess.), § 8; 1985, No. 93, § 4; 1985, No. 225 (Adj. Sess.), § 8; 1987, No. 121, § 6; 1987, No. 183 (Adj. Sess.), § 10; 1989, No. 67, § 5; 1989, No. 277 (Adj. Sess.), § 7, eff. July 8, 1990; 1991, No. 189 (Adj. Sess.), § 8, eff. May 19, 1992; 1993, No. 171 (Adj. Sess.), § 2, eff. June 1, 1994; 1993, No. 227 (Adj. Sess.), § 4; 1995, 1993, No. 177 (Adj. Sess.), § 3; 1997, No. 28, § 3, eff. May 15, 1997; 1999, No. 40, § 4, eff. July 4, 1999; 2001, No. 66, § 4; 2001, No. 116 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. May 28, 2002; 2003, No. 66, § 318; 2003, No. 156 (Adj. Sess.), § 9, eff. July 11, 2004; 2005, No. 66, § 5; 2007, No. 47, § 3; 2009, No. 4, § 119, eff. April 29, 2009; 2009, No. 4, § 123, eff. Feb. 1, 2011; 2009, No. 154 (Adj. Sess.), § 199, eff. Feb. 1, 2011; 2011, No. 1, § 6, eff. Feb. 2, 2011; 2011, No. 130 (Adj. Sess.), § 7; 2013, No. 160 (Adj. Sess.), § 6; 2015, No. 58, § B.1114, eff. June 11, 2015; 2015, No. 172 (Adj. Sess.), § F6; 2017, No. 191 (Adj. Sess.), § 7; 2017, No. 191 (Adj. Sess.), § 10, eff. July 1, 2019; 2021, No. 74, § F.107; 2021, No. 105 (Adj. Sess.), § 480, eff. July 1, 2022; 2021, No. 185 (Adj. Sess.), § F.106, eff. July 1, 2022; 2023, No. 113 (Adj. Sess.), § G.106, eff. July 1, 2024.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1977–1977 · leading case: In Re Douglas, 382 A.2d 215 (Vt. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Douglas, 382 A.2d 215 (Vt. 1977). · cites it 4× “Furthermore, the provisions of 32 V.S.A. § 1142, setting the salaries of probate judges, in relevant part reads: (a) The annual salaries of the judges of probate in the several probate districts, which shall be paid by the state in lieu of all fees or other compensation, shall…”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 1142(a) — 1 case

In Re Douglas, 382 A.2d 215 (Vt. 1977). “Furthermore, the provisions of 32 V.S.A. § 1142, setting the salaries of probate judges, in relevant part reads: (a) The annual salaries of the judges of probate in the several probate districts, which shall be paid by the state in lieu of all fees or other compensation, shall…”

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.