Relief from judgment under Rule 60 is available only to parties -- even though movant did not have notice and opportunity to become a party.
SCOVT
by Zphx
1M ago
    In Re Burchard Road Petition To Abandon Land Use Permit Denial, 2024 VT 51 (Neighbor, a party to the original act 250 proceeding who lives in New Jersey, did not receive notice of a request to abandon the Act 250 permit because the post office did not deliver a “notice to interested persons” mailed by the district commission to Neighbor’s Vermont street address.  As a result, Neighbor did not participate in the district commission proceeding or in the appeal to Environmental Court, which issued a final judgment and later denied Neighbor relief from judgment under Rule 6 ..read more
Visit website
Divided Court reverses denial of motion to suppress breath test, holding officer may not require DUI suspect to elect whether to take a second test before providing results of first test.
SCOVT
by Zphx
1M ago
  Statev. Ettore, 2024 VT 52 [filed   COHEN, J. In this interlocutory appeal, defendant Eileen Ettore challenges the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress an evidentiary breath-alcohol test, which she filed in both her criminal and civil dockets. We agree with defendant that, under the plain language of 23 V.S.A. §§ 1202(d)(5) and 1203(c), law enforcement must provide a suspect with the results of their first breath test before requiring the suspect to elect whether to take a second test. We reverse the court’s decision and remand for additional proceedings in the criminal c ..read more
Visit website
SCOVT affirms judgment as a matter of law for defendant driver in negligence case where there was no specific evidence of a causal link between driver’s alleged negligence and plaintiff jogger’s injury.
SCOVT
by Zphx
1M ago
 Driscoll v. Wright Cut and Clean LLC, 2024 VT 49 [August 2, 2024]  EATON, J. Plaintiff Frank Driscoll appeals a civil division order granting judgment as a matter of law on his negligence claim in favor of defendants Benjamin Wright and Wright Cut and Clean, LLC. Based on the evidence plaintiff presented at trial, defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 50 at the close of plaintiff’s case. The court granted defendants’ motion. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law. Because we ..read more
Visit website
SCOVT affirms summary judgment in favor of defendant who pledged investment account as security, holding plaintiff did not have a valid security interest in account that was never subject to the control of the plaintiff as required by the security agreement .
SCOVT
by Zphx
1y ago
Berkshire Bank v.  Kelly, 2023 VT 2  WAPLES, J. Plaintiff Berkshire Bank filed this action seeking possession of funds in an investment account owned by defendant Thomas Kelly, which defendant purportedly pledged as security for a business loan to his sister Dorothea Kelly. The civil division granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, concluding that plaintiff did not have a valid security interest in the account. We agree and affirm.   The trial court ruled a a security interest never attached under 9A V.S.A. § 9-203(b) and granted defendant's motion for summary jud ..read more
Visit website
SCOVT reverses suspension of driver’s license, holding blood -alcohol test inadmissible for lack of foundation showing compliance with performance standards in DPS rules.
SCOVT
by Zphx
1y ago
    State v.  White, 2023 VT 38  COHEN, J. Defendant appeals from the civil division’s final judgment suspending his driver’s license. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the results of an evidentiary blood-alcohol test because the State did not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that defendant’s blood sample was collected and analyzed in compliance with Department of Public Safety (DPS) rules. We conclude that there was an insufficient foundation to allow admission of the test result and therefore reverse and remand for entry of judgment ..read more
Visit website
SCOVT reverses in part environmental division enforcement order based on clearly erroneous finding of knowledge of terms of prior owners agreement found to have been violated.
SCOVT
by Zphx
1y ago
   City of Burlington v. Sisters & Brothers Investment Group, LLP, 2023 VT 24 CARROLL, J. Defendant-landowner Sisters & Brothers Investment Group, LLP (SBIG) appeals an environmental-division enforcement order enjoining it from using real property in the City of Burlington, ordering it to address site-improvement deficiencies as required by an agreement executed by a prior owner and the City, and imposing $66,759.22 in fines. We reverse and remand.   The trial court “independently” concluded that SBIG had “failed to ever comply with a  2004 agreement,” and substan ..read more
Visit website
SCOVT affirms Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of a challenge, under the Education Clause and Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution, to statutes that allow school districts to refuse to permit children to attend an out-of-district public school or an independent school at the state’s expense.
SCOVT
by Zphx
1y ago
Vitalev. Bellows Falls Union High School, 2023 VT 15  EATON, J. Plaintiffs are three sets of parents of schoolchildren who reside in school districts which maintain a public school for at least some grades and do not provide the opportunity for children to attend the public or independent school of their parents’ choice for all grades at the state’s expense. They raise a facial constitutional challenge to Vermont statutes that allow school districts to choose whether to maintain a public school, permit children to attend an out-of-district public school or an independent school at the s ..read more
Visit website
SCOVT affirms summary judgment that 21 V.S.A. § 640(c) did not require prior employer to reimburse claimant for lost wages, holding claimant had no standing to assert constitutional rights of new employer.
SCOVT
by Zphx
1y ago
Mahmutovic v. Washington County Mental Health Services, Inc., 2023 VT 37 COHEN, J. Claimant Semir Mahmutovic appeals a decision of the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Labor concluding that claimant’s prior employer was not obligated to reimburse claimant for lost wages under 21 V.S.A. § 640(c), and that the statute was not unconstitutional as applied to claimant. We determine that claimant has conceded that the Commissioner properly interpreted § 640(c), and further conclude that claimant does not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 640(c). Therefore, we aff ..read more
Visit website
Divided Court affirms confirmation of arbitration award against employer without deciding whether “manifest disregard" of the law is an appropriate standard of review. The law did not manifestly require employer to discipline employee for HIPAA violation in this case.
SCOVT
by Zphx
1y ago
  Howard Center v. AFSCME Local 1674,  2023 VT 6    REIBER, C.J. . Employer Howard Center appeals from a trial court order that confirmed an arbitration award in favor of grievant Daniel Peyser and AFSCME Local 1674. Employer asks this Court to adopt manifest disregard" of the law as a basis for setting aside an " arbitration award and to conclude that the arbitrator violated that standard here. We do not decide whether to adopt the manifest-disregard standard because, assuming arguendo it applies, employer fails to show that its requirements are satisfied. We therefore aff ..read more
Visit website
SCOVT affirms murder conviction, holding warrantless ping search for cell phone location did not under exigent circumstances violate Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution.
SCOVT
by Zphx
1y ago
State v. Murphy, 2023 VT 8 . CARROLL, J. Defendant appeals from his conviction for second-degree murder following a jury trial. He argues that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless “ping” of his cell phone; (3) failing to sua sponte give a limiting instruction on evidence of flight; and (4) denying his motion for new trial. We conclude that defendant was not entitled to a judgment of acquittal. We further hold that, while defendant had a legitimate privacy interest in his ..read more
Visit website

Follow SCOVT on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR