Petitioners Representative Donald Turner, Jr. and Senator Joseph Benning, sought to enjoin respondent Governor Peter Shumlin (whose last day in office was January 5, 2017), from appointing a successor to the office held by Associate Justice John Dooley, whose term was set to expire April 1, 2017. Justice Dooley did not file a declaration with the Office of the Secretary of State indicating that he would seek retention for another term beyond March 31, 2017, the last day of his then-current six-year term. On December 21, 2016, Representative Turner filed a petition for quo warranto contesting the Governor's authority to appoint Justice Dooley's successor, asserting that although the Vermont Constitution authorized the Governor to fill a vacancy on the Court, no vacancy would exist until Justice Dooley left office nearly three months after Governor Shumlin left his office. The Supreme Court concluded that the Vermont Constitution did not authorize the Governor to appoint an Associate Justice in anticipation of a vacancy that was not expected to occur until the expiration of the justice's term of office, which would occur months after the Governor left office. "In so holding, we emphasize that our decision today rests entirely upon the meaning and purpose of the Vermont Constitution. We reach our decision having in mind the overarching principles of our democracy: the integrity of our governing institutions and the people's confidence in them. The particular identity of the parties or potential nominees to the Office of Associate Justice have no bearing on our decision. Our sole responsibility in this, as in any, case is to apply the law evenhandedly, regardless of the identity of the litigants, the sensitivity of the issues, or the passing political interests of the moment." View "Turner v. Shumlin" on Justia Law

The superior court certified a question of law for the Vermont Supreme Court’s review in connection with the prosecution of defendant Geoffrey King. Specifically, the court and parties asked the Supreme Court to determine what legal standard the superior court should apply to determine whether the State’s approximately three-year delay in bringing charges against defendant violated defendant’s due process rights under the U.S. and Vermont Constitutions. Defendant was accused of sexual assault. The Supreme Court concluded that, to establish the State’s pre-accusation delay violated a defendant’s due process rights under either the U.S. Constitution or the Vermont Constitution, the defendant had to demonstrate actual substantial prejudice and prosecutorial misconduct intended to gain a tactical advantage or to advance some other impermissible purpose that violates fundamental conceptions of justice. Because defendant failed to meet either prong of this standard, the Court affirmed the superior court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. View "Vermont v. King" on Justia Law

Defendant Tristan Cameron appealed his conviction for grossly negligent operation of a motor vehicle resulting in the death of a passenger. He argued on appeal that there was not enough evidence to convict him, that testimony regarding his marijuana use should have been excluded, that prejudicial juror discussions occurred, and that the trial court’s instruction to the jury lowered the standard of proof required for conviction. Because the Vermont Supreme Court found that the State presented enough evidence to create a question for the jury, the Court affirmed on the first issue. But because, absent expert testimony, the jury was left to speculate that the State’s evidence provided the necessary link between defendant’s marijuana use and the grossly negligent operation charge, the Court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the second issue. View "Vermont v. Cameron" on Justia Law

Mother and father separately appealed a family court judgment terminating their parental rights to the minors D.S. and W.S. Mother contended the court improperly relied on factors beyond her control in concluding that her ability to parent had stagnated. Father contended: (1) the court improperly failed to address individually whether his ability to parent the children had stagnated; (2) the evidence failed to show that he was unable to resume parenting within a reasonable time; and (3) the court violated his right to due process of law by relying on expectations not in the case plan. The Supreme Court concluded that the predicate finding that mother’s failure to progress amounted to stagnation was unsupported, and therefore that the judgment terminating mother’s parental rights was reversed. The Court agreed with father that the trial court's findings were insufficient to support a conclusion that a termination of father’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The Court reversed as to both parents and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re D.S. and W.S." on Justia Law

Mother and father were the parents of a daughter, born in 2009. Mother and father were never married and their relationship ended before daughter was born; daughter lived exclusively with mother for the first twenty-one months of her life. In April 2011, the parties entered into a parenting agreement, accepted by the court as an order, that gave mother sole legal and physical rights and responsibilities for daughter, subject to father's parent-child contact. Mother appealed a family court order modifying parental rights and granting father sole legal and physical rights and responsibilities for their daughter. Mother argued that the family court's decision modifying parental rights was based on erroneous facts and improper consideration of the child's bests interests and resulted from bias against her by the court. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Clark v. Bellavance" on Justia Law

The issue presented for the Vermont Supreme Court's review was found in a series of e-mails exchanged between two business partners who jointly owned a document shredding company, and whether those e-mails (read together) constituted an enforceable contract to sell one partner's interest in the company to the other partner. Defendant-seller appealed the trial court's determination that the partners had an enforceable contract and that seller was obligated to negotiate the remaining terms of the deal in good faith. He argued that there were too many open terms to produce an enforceable contract and that the partners had no intent to be bound to a contract by their e-mails. Plaintiff-buyer cross-appealed, arguing that the e-mails demonstrated an intent to be bound, and that the Supreme Court should enforce the contract. The Supreme Court rejected the buyer's argument that the parties had entered into a fully-completed contract, and agreed with the seller that there was no enforceable contract at all. The Court reversed the trial court which held to the contrary, and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the seller. View "Miller v. Flegenheimer" on Justia Law

The Employment Security Board (ESB) affirmed a Department of Labor audit of appellant, Great Northern Construction (GNC). The Department's auditor concluded that GNC had improperly classified two of its workers as independent contractors rather than employees for the purposes of unemployment insurance taxes. In accordance with Vermont's Unemployment Compensation Law, the Department issued GNC an assessment for unpaid taxes from 2011 to 2014 plus interest and a penalty. GNC sought review of the assessment before an administrative law judge, who upheld the Department's tax assessment, and GNC appealed that decision to the ESB. The ESB concluded that the workers in question were not independent contractors but employees according to Vermont's statutory definition of the term. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the ESB concerning one worker, but reversed as to the other. View "Great Northern Construction, Inc. v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Eastern Bail Bond Agency, Inc., which had posted a surety bond for defendant Joshua Anderson, appealed the trial court's forfeiture of bail and subsequent denials of Eastern's motions to vacate and to reconsider. On appeal, Eastern raised several arguments concerning the propriety of the order under the circumstances of the case. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the court failed to properly exercise its discretion in forfeiting bail without resolving Eastern's factual allegations. The Court therefore reversed and remanded. View "Vermont v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The State appealed a Labor Relations Board decision to reverse its dismissal of grievant John Lepore, instead suspending him for thirty days without pay. The Board agreed with the State that grievant committed serious offenses and demonstrated 'poor judgment and dishonesty related to his fitness for state employment' while serving as a juror in a capital murder trial. It concluded, however, the State could not dismiss grievant given its delay in imposing discipline and its failure to restrict grievant's job duties during the investigation into grievant's misconduct. The State argued that neither ground undermined its conclusion that grievant's serious misconduct warranted dismissal, particularly because grievant suffered no prejudice from the delay. After review, the Supreme Court agreed, and therefore reversed the Board's decision. View "In re Grievance of John Lepore" on Justia Law

Following a conditional guilty plea to drug and child-cruelty charges, defendant Stuart Cleland appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant of his residence did not provide probable cause for issuance of the warrant. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial. View "Vermont v. Cleland" on Justia Law