Legal Opinion
State v. Colby
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided March 13, 2009No. 07-317 & 07-376PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
¶ 1. Pursuant to Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(a), the district court has, with the parties’ consent, certified two questions for our review in connection with the prosecution of defendants Boots Wardinski and Michael Colby for disorderly conduct. The certified questions are: “[c]an the State obtain a conviction under 13 V.S.A. § 1026(4) without proving that uninvited political speech actually caused a substantial disruption of a lawful assemblyt,]” and “[c]an the State obtain a conviction under 13 V.S.A. § 1026(4) for attempting to recklessly create a public inconvenience by…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Thornhill v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Terminiello v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. David TracySupreme Court of Vermont · 2015
- State v. AlbarelliSupreme Court of Vermont · 2011
- State v. Green Mountain FutureSupreme Court of Vermont · 2013
- GP Burlington South, LLC v. Department of TaxesSupreme Court of Vermont · 2010
- In re T.S.S.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2015
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.