In re Unnamed
Supreme Court of Vermont
1Opinion of the Court
¶ 1. Defendant challenges his conviction for resisting arrest on the grounds that the police did not have probable cause to arrest him. We do not address defendant’s challenge as we find it is moot.
¶ 2. The mootness doctrine has its foundations in the Vermont Constitution, which “limits the authority of the courts to the determination of actual, live controversies between adverse litigants.” Holton v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Training, 2005 VT 42, ¶ 14, 178 Vt. 147, 878 A.2d 1051. An issue is moot when “the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome,” State v. Curry, 2009 VT 89, ¶ 11,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Holton v. Department of Employment & TrainingSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005
- Houston v. Town of WaitsfieldSupreme Court of Vermont · 2007
- State v. RooneySupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
- E.S. v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005
- State v. CurrySupreme Court of Vermont · 2009
3Cited by9 opinions
- In re Appeal of Dezarae DurkeeSupreme Court of Vermont · 2017
- In re Estate of Elizabeth LaFranceVermont Superior Court · 2011
- In re KimmickSupreme Court of Vermont · 2013
- In re KimmickSupreme Court of Vermont · 2013
- Omya Solid Waste Facility Interim CertificationVermont Superior Court · 2011
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.