Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Independent candidate Gary Trudell and voter Myron Dorfman challenged the constitutionality of Vermont’s schedule for filing candidate petitions, alleging that the uniform deadline for all party (major and minor) and independent candidates was discriminatory and impermissibly impinged upon the associational and voting rights of candidates and voters under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the filing deadline was a reasonable, nondiscriminatory regulation, justified by Vermont’s regulatory interests, the Court affirmed the lower court decision declaring the deadline constitutional. View "Trudell v. Vermont " on Justia Law

Defendant Rusty Brooks appealed his convictions on two counts of aggravated sexual assault on a minor following a jury trial, alleging several errors. Defendant asserted that: (1) the trial court committed reversible error by failing to suppress all statements made to the police; (2) by admitting evidence of defendant’s website-browsing history; (3) the introduction of previously excluded testimony at trial rendered the trial was unfair; and (4) even if none of his individual claims constituted reversible error, the cumulative effect of all errors denied him a fair trial. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed defendant's convictions. View "Vermont v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Defendant Shaun Freeman was given a twenty-year-to-life sentence following a plea agreement on assault charges. On automatic appeal to the Supreme Court, he challenged two of the probation conditions that were attached to his plea agreement. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld one of the conditions but remanded the case for the criminal division of the superior court to reexamine and to justify, revise, or strike the other condition. View "Vermont v. Freeman" on Justia Law

New England Coalition, Inc. (NEC) filed a complaint to the Supreme Court seeking injunctive relief to enjoin Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) from continuing to operate the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. NEC alleged that Entergy was operating in violation of the Public Service Board’s final order approving the 2002 sale of the power plant to Entergy in Docket No. 6545. Finding no grounds to grant equitable relief, the Supreme Court dismissed NEC's complaint. View "In re Investigation into General Order No. 45" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed a jury verdict finding that defendant’s conceded breach of a duty of care, and the resulting low-impact, rear-end auto accident, was not the proximate cause of any injuries and harm to plaintiff. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s instruction concerning proximate cause improperly and prejudicially directed the jury to consider the foreseeability of plaintiff’s injuries, even though “duty” and “breach” had been established as a matter of law. On that ground, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court. The Court considered several other issues raised by plaintiff that were likely to arise on remand and concluded that none would require reversal. View "Fagnant v. Foss" on Justia Law

Father appealed a superior court family division's order that upheld a magistrate’s denial of his motion to modify his child support obligation. Specifically, father argued: (1) that the magistrate erred in declining to impute income to mother; and (2) that the magistrate failed to properly apply a credit in his favor to account for derivative benefits paid directly to mother on behalf of the minor child by the Social Security Administration on account of father’s disability. Upon review of the superior court record, the Supreme Court found that although the magistrate properly invoked the methodology established in the Court's holding in "Cantin," it did not complete its analysis: "[t]he magistrate conducted the first step of the guidelines analysis properly, imputing the derivative benefit to father and calculating a child support obligation accordingly. . . . However, the magistrate [. . .] never actually took the second step described in Cantin of applying [a $190 as a] payment from father to mother as a credit toward his child support obligation. Had it done so, it would have found that mother owed father a substantial monthly child support obligation on account of the imputed payment of child support from father to mother, by way of the derivative benefit, well in excess of the nominal child support obligation from father to mother pursuant to the guidelines calculation." Accordingly the Court reversed the superior court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. Furthermore, the Court held that in the absence of a deviation from the guidelines calculation, father was entitled to an award of child support in the amount of the credit to him for the derivative benefit payment to mother less his child support obligation pursuant to the guidelines. The Court found that neither the magistrate nor the family division specifically addressed the proper accounting with respect to a $4370 lump sum derivative benefit arrearage payment to mother on behalf of the minor child. Because the obligation in question was payable to a third party, on remand the magistrate was ordered ensure that mother applied the lump sum toward father’s share of the child's medical bills, and that father was credited accordingly. View "LaMothe v. LeBlanc" on Justia Law

Defendant Shane Casey appealed his conviction of two counts of aggravated sexual assault, alleging that the trial court erred in: (1) denying defendant’s motion to sever a joint trial; (2) refusing to grant a new trial after codefendant pled no contest midtrial; and (3) admitting the victim’s diary as evidence of her sexual abuse. The Supreme Court found no error, and affirmed Defendant's convictions. View "Vermont v. Casey" on Justia Law

Defendant Mark Snow appealed his conviction for sexual assault. He contended that the trial court gave an improper jury instruction, mischaracterizing the law and eliminating the State’s burden to prove each and every element of the crime as charged. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the jury instruction accurately reflected the law as applied to the circumstances of this case and that the instruction did not compromise defendant’s ability to contest the charges against him. View "Vermont v. Snow" on Justia Law

Defendant ex-husband appealed a superior court - family division order which found him in contempt for failure to pay spousal maintenance as ordered. He claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction to find him in contempt because he was not personally served with the underlying order upon which the finding of contempt was based, as required by statute and our case law. Finding defendant's argument to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Welch v. Welch" on Justia Law

In consolidated cases, the Supreme Court addressed disputes over child support. The disputes were described as "so stale that the parties' children are in and approaching their thirties." The basic questions were whether father could register and enforce a child support order obtained in Oklahoma against mother and, inversely, whether mother could register and enforce an earlier child support order obtained in Georgia against father. Upon review, the Court concluded that mother's various jurisdictional challenges to the Oklahoma order were without merit and precluded by the unappealed adjudication in Oklahoma. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the Vermont court had personal jurisdiction over father with respect to mother's child support claims against him and a statutory immunity provision in the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) did not apply. As a result, the Court affirmed the superior court's dismissal of mother's enforcement action, affirmed the superior court's jurisdictional holdings with regard to the Oklahoma order. The Court remanded the adjudication of father's enforcement action for consideration of counterclaims raised by mother. View "OCS/Pappas v. O'Brien" on Justia Law