Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Kimberly Love

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided August 18, 2017No. 2016-192Published

1DissentDooley, J.

¶ 18. The majority's decision includes a simple flaw in its reasoning-namely that "the Legislature enacted subsection (t) in the wake of Singer and articulated when the time limits in subsections (g) and (h) should be mandatory and when they should be directive." Ante, ¶ 13. This is not an accurate statement. By its plain language, the Legislature articulated only when the time limits of subsections (g) and (h) should be directive. Neither this Court nor the Legislature has explicitly answered whether the twenty-one-day time limits in those subsections are ever mandatory for second or…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Stone v. Immigration & Naturalization ServiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  2. In Re MullesteinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1987
  3. State v. SingerSupreme Court of Vermont · 2000
  4. In re A.S. and K.S., JuvenilesSupreme Court of Vermont · 2016
  5. Town of Salisbury v. ButtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1923

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API