Legal Opinion
State v. Mahoney
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided February 27, 1967No. 397PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Per curiam
The procedures for bringing questions to this Court before final judgment continue to plague practitioners. There are two steps. The first is to obtain recorded permission from the court concerned to bring up to this Court the questions to be decided. Failure to do this means a failure to confer the jurisdiction necessary to deal with the case at all, here, at that point. LaDuke Est. v. LaDuke, 126 Vt. 27, 220 A.2d 474; Roy v. Roy, 123 Vt. 92, 182 A.2d 337.
The second step, required by Rule 2A of the Supreme Court, 12 V.S.A. App I R2A/ is to obtain from the certifying court a signed statement…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Town of Putney v. Town of BrooklineSupreme Court of Vermont · 1967
- In Re Crescent Beach AssociationSupreme Court of Vermont · 1965
- Davis v. Albany Discount CorporationSupreme Court of Vermont · 1965
- Roy v. RoySupreme Court of Vermont · 1962
- State v. BenjaminSupreme Court of Vermont · 1963
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- In Re Pyramid Co. of BurlingtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1982
- Town of Barnet v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1973
- State v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1980
- State v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Vermont · 1971
- In Re New England Telephone and Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1973
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.