Legal Opinion
In Re Hill
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided December 18, 1987No. 87-581PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Per curiam
Special counsel to the Judicial Conduct Board petition the Court for extraordinary relief under V.R.A.P. 21, requesting relief in the nature of mandamus to compel the testimony of Attorney General Jeffrey Amestoy and Assistant Attorney General David Suntag at the hearing on the formal complaint in this matter. The petition is dismissed.
It is an essential condition to the granting of extraordinary relief by this Court that petitioner set forth “the reasons why there is no adequate remedy by appeal under these rules or by appeal or proceedings for extraordinary relief” in superior court.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- McCartney v. Commission on Judicial QualificationsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Matter of BatesTexas Supreme Court · 1977
- Castle v. SHERBURNE CORPORATIONSupreme Court of Vermont · 1982
- Moore v. TurnerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1952
- In Re MarkleWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- In re J.G.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1993
- In Re Appeal of Application for Search WarrantSupreme Court of Vermont · 2012
- In Re Vermont Electric Power Producers, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1996
- Concerning Justice HillSupreme Court of Vermont · 1988
- Hill v. WheelSupreme Court of Vermont · 1988
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.