Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
In Re Town Highway No. 20
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2012-03-23 · cited 43×
The case involved a long-standing dispute between John Rhodes and the Town of Georgia over the existence, maintenance, and use of two ancient town roads bordering his property, which began with his 1995 petition to the selectboard for access and improvements and escalated into claims of discriminatory denial of road access to benefit his neighbors. The trial court found that the selectboard's repeated and malicious actions violated Chapter I, Article 7 of the Vermont Constitution, the Common Benefits Clause, by arbitrarily frustrating Rhodes's property rights. The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed the judgment of liability, concluding that Article 7 is self-executing and supports a damages remedy for such constitutional violations, but reversed the specific damage award and remanded for further proceedings to determine appropriate relief.
civil rightspropertyprocedure
Southwick v. City of Rutland
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2011-09-09 · cited 29×
The case involves the Vermont Swim Association (VSA) appealing a trial court's award of over $166,000 in attorney's fees to the City of Rutland. The fees stemmed from the City's defense in a negligence lawsuit by the Southwicks after a child was injured at a park during VSA's swim meet, as well as the City's third-party actions against VSA and insurers under their facility-use agreement. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the fee award and remanded, holding that the plain language of the agreement's indemnity clause requires VSA to cover only the City's defense costs in the underlying tort suit, not fees from indemnity or third-party claims. The core reasoning applies the American Rule that each party bears its own attorney's fees absent a clear contractual exception, finding the clause unambiguous and limited to direct defense expenses rather than litigation over enforcement of the indemnity itself.
proceduretorts & liability
State v. Myers
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2011-04-22 · cited 18×
The case involved defendant Myers, who after heavy drinking drove his truck onto a complaining witness's property, rammed the mobile home where the witness's child slept, drove toward the witness, fled, and later struggled with and kicked arresting officers. He was convicted by a jury on seven charges including aggravated assault and related offenses. On appeal Myers raised multiple claims of trial error, including denial of a motion to exclude prejudicial evidence of prior racial statements, refusal to instruct on lesser-included offenses or defenses such as diminished capacity and necessity, a flawed intent instruction, a defective charging document, and denial of acquittal on one assault count for lack of proven injury. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court committed no reversible error in its evidentiary or instructional rulings and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
criminal lawprocedure
Trinder v. Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2011-04-22 · cited 11×
Homeowners filed a declaratory judgment action against their title insurance company to compel defense and indemnification after learning their septic system encroached on neighboring museum property. The trial court held that the policy did not require coverage, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the forced-removal provision was inapplicable because the museum never demanded removal or filed suit, and the marketability provision did not apply because no challenge to title occurred. The court further concluded that the homeowners had not preserved an alternative encumbrance argument for appeal.
property
State v. Rounds
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2011-04-15 · cited 18×
The case involved a home improvement contractor charged with home improvement fraud under Vermont law after entering a contract to renovate a second home but failing to complete the work to the homeowners' satisfaction despite receiving multiple payments. The defendant appealed his jury conviction, arguing insufficient evidence of intent to defraud, an improper permissive inference jury instruction under 13 V.S.A. § 2029, and the statute's unconstitutionality. The Vermont Supreme Court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the State failed to establish the predicate facts needed to support the permissive inference instruction and that the instruction as given did not align with the statute's requirements or evidence rules. The court reasoned that the instruction improperly allowed the jury to infer guilt without the necessary factual basis from the evidence presented at trial.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Memoli
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2011-02-10 · cited 13×
In State v. Memoli, the defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault based on an incident following a New Year's Eve party in which the complainant alleged she was forced to engage in sexual acts after being given drugs at the defendant's home, while the defense claimed the encounter was consensual and involved voluntary drug use by all parties. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the trial judge's pretrial order excluding all evidence of the complainant's cocaine use before and after the alleged assault was erroneous because it prevented the defendant from presenting his theory that the complainant voluntarily exchanged sex for drugs. The majority reasoned that this evidence was central to the consent defense and its exclusion was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, though it rejected the claim regarding a lesser-included offense instruction.
criminal lawprocedure