Defendant Asim Betts was charged with felony possession of crack cocaine after a vehicle in which he was riding was stopped, and he was transported to the police station. After the trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence and dismiss the charges against him, defendant entered a conditional plea agreement reserving to appeal the suppression decision. Defendant argued that all evidence should have been suppressed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution because his consent to be taken to the police barracks for a strip search was invalid. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that defendant's consent was obtained only in response to the threat of an unlawful warrantless arrest under both the Fourth Amendment and Article 11. Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Vermont v. Betts" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Gilbert and Shelagh McCormack appealed a superior court's denial of their motion for a new trial on the grounds of alleged juror bias. The issues on appeal to the Supreme Court were: (1) whether plaintiffs' motion was timely; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion under "In re Nash," (614 A.2d 367 (1991)); and (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion under "implied bias." Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court. View "McCormack v. Rutland Hospital, Inc." on Justia Law

Father appealed a superior court's judgment terminating his parental rights with respect to B.C. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred in: (1) denying parent-child contact in violation of his fundamental rights; (2) denying his request for an independent mental examination of B.C.; (3) making unsupported findings; and (4) applying the statutory best-interests criteria. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re B.C." on Justia Law

Mother appealed a trial court order terminating her residual parental rights to her children A.B. and A.B. She argued the trial court erred in denying her request to proceed pro se, which she made on the first day of the termination hearing. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's request, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "In re A.B. and A.B." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Adam Cate sued the City of Burlington for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claiming that the City disciplined him for actions and in a manner not authorized by the City's personnel manual. The trial court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, finding the manual unambiguously allowed the City to place plaintiff on paid administrative leave pending an investigation into unacceptable behavior. The court also concluded that plaintiff failed to prove his claim for IIED. Plaintiff argued on appeal that the trial court misconstrued the City's personnel manual, that issues of fact still remained, and there was sufficient evidence of outrageous conduct. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed with plaintiff's claims of error and affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the City. View "Cate v. City of Burlington" on Justia Law

At the heart of this case was a dispute between developer, Birchwood Land Company, Inc., and contractor, Ormond Bushey & Sons, Inc. over a construction contract.  The developer sued for breach of contract, claiming mainly that the contractor had removed excavated sand from the construction site without permission.  The contractor counterclaimed for amounts due under the contract. The court found that the contractor breached the contract and granted the developer damages for the lost sand. The unpaid balance owed on the contract was offset by the damages. On appeal, the contractor argued that the court erred in denying its request for interest penalties and attorney's fees as the substantially prevailing party. The developer argued that the court erred in limiting damages for the sand removal, denying its request for punitive damages, granting prejudgment interest on contractor's net recovery, and denying its claim for slander of title. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence in the record supported the trial court's judgment in this case and affirmed the outcome. View "Birchwood Land Company, Inc. v. Ormond Bushey & Sons, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellees' (two brothers and a sister) family owned and operated a farm in Pomfret. In 2009, neighbors appealed to the Environmental Division from a decision by the Town’s zoning board of adjustment (ZBA) granting a construction permit for a planer building on farm property. They also appealed a ZBA denial of their request to enforce what they considered to be zoning violations concerning the building of a sawmill and kiln buildings on farm property. The trial court issued a written ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, concluding that the wood-processing buildings at issue did not satisfy the criteria for a permit exemption under the Pomfret zoning ordinance, but that factual issues remained as to whether they qualified as “farm structures” exempt from local zoning regulation under state law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found no basis to disturb the judgment the trial court's decision, and affirmed it. View "In re Moore Accessory Structure Permit and Use" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions on charges of disorderly conduct and cruelty to a child. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence presented against Defendant was sufficient to support the convictions. View "Vermont v. Amsden" on Justia Law

Defendant City of Burlington Retirement System appealed a superior court judgment that reversed its decision to terminate the disability retirement of plaintiff, a former City firefighter. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the record fully supported the superior court's conclusion that there was no reasonable basis for the Board's decision to terminate plaintiff's disability retirement. View "Preston v. Burlington City Reitrement System" on Justia Law

Wife appealed an order modifying spousal maintenance. She argued the trial court erred in setting the date for the modification to take effect, and by reducing husband's maintenance obligation based on her anticipated inheritance even though it had not yet been received, and absent a demonstration that it would improve her financial situation. Upon review of the order, the Supreme Court reversed, finding the evidence supported findings that husband's increase in income was a change of circumstances warranting reinstatement of the original maintenance amount, but that there were insufficient findings to demonstrate, that the inheritance improved her financial situation sufficiently to warrant further modifying her maintenance amount. View "Hausermann v. Hausermann" on Justia Law