Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 32 Chapter 135
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 5408 (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: 32 V.S.A. § 5408)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2001–2011 · leading case: In re Town of Killington, 838 A.2d 98 (Vt. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Town of Killington, 838 A.2d 98 (Vt. 2003). · cites it 12× “32 V.S.A. § 5408(a). Within thirty days of receiving the Director’s redetermination, a municipality may again appeal to the Valuation Appeal Board.”
Town of Bridgewater v. Dep't of Taxes, 787 A.2d 1234 (Vt. 2001). · cites it 3× “The Rutland Superior Court granted the motion on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies provided under 32 V.S.A. § 5408. We affirm. Act 60 funds the state’s education expenses through a general state support grant and local property tax.”
Town of Killington v. Dep't of Taxes, 2003 VT 88 (Vt. 2003). · cites it 2× “Killington petitioned for a redetermination under 32 V.S.A. § 5408, which resulted in a reduction of value to $403,980,885.”
In re: Appeal of the Town of Colchester (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011). · cites it 6× “3 At about the same time that the Pace appeal was filed in early January 2008, the Town of Colchester—pursuant to 32 V.S.A. § 5408—petitioned the Director of the Vermont Department of Taxes’ Division of Property Valuation and Review (PVR) for a redetermination of the Town’s 2007…”
Champlain Hous. Trust, Inc. v. City of Burlington (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011). “Exhaustion PVR argues that the City has failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to it pursuant to 32 V.S.A. § 5408. The City asserts that it could not have petitioned for a redetermination under § 5408 because at the time PVR’s Director certified the City’s…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 5408(a) — 2 cases
In re Town of Killington, 838 A.2d 98 (Vt. 2003). “32 V.S.A. § 5408(a). Within thirty days of receiving the Director’s redetermination, a municipality may again appeal to the Valuation Appeal Board.”
Town of Bridgewater v. Dep't of Taxes, 787 A.2d 1234 (Vt. 2001). “The Rutland Superior Court granted the motion on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies provided under 32 V.S.A. § 5408. We affirm. Act 60 funds the state’s education expenses through a general state support grant and local property tax.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 5408(c) — 2 cases
In re Town of Killington, 838 A.2d 98 (Vt. 2003). “32 V.S.A. § 5408(a). Within thirty days of receiving the Director’s redetermination, a municipality may again appeal to the Valuation Appeal Board.”
In re: Appeal of the Town of Colchester (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011). “3 At about the same time that the Pace appeal was filed in early January 2008, the Town of Colchester—pursuant to 32 V.S.A. § 5408—petitioned the Director of the Vermont Department of Taxes’ Division of Property Valuation and Review (PVR) for a redetermination of the Town’s 2007…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 5408(d) — 2 cases
Town of Killington v. Dep't of Taxes, 2003 VT 88 (Vt. 2003). “Killington petitioned for a redetermination under 32 V.S.A. § 5408, which resulted in a reduction of value to $403,980,885.”
In re: Appeal of the Town of Colchester (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011). “3 At about the same time that the Pace appeal was filed in early January 2008, the Town of Colchester—pursuant to 32 V.S.A. § 5408—petitioned the Director of the Vermont Department of Taxes’ Division of Property Valuation and Review (PVR) for a redetermination of the Town’s 2007…”
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.