Legal Opinion

Hinsdale v. Sherman

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided November 8, 2000No. 00-030PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Plaintiff Clark Hinsdale appeals from a decision of the Chittenden Superior Court granting defendants Crosby and Helen Sherman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to VR.C.R 12(c). The court ruled that defendants’ purchase of a lot of land according to an existing purchase and sale agreement did not trigger plaintiff’s later-granted option to purchase the same land. On appeal, plaintiff argues that defendants took the land subject to the option contract because, at the time of purchase, defendants had notice of the option. We affirm.

This action arose from a series of agreements…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Morrisseau v. FayetteSupreme Court of Vermont · 1995
  2. Knight v. RowerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1999
  3. Okemo Mountain, Inc. v. Town of Ludlow Zoning Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Vermont · 1995
  4. In Re Estate of GortonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1997
  5. Cameron v. Double A. Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1991

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Vermont · 2022
  2. USGen New England, Inc. v. Town of RockinghamSupreme Court of Vermont · 2003
  3. Draxxion Talandar v. Elizabeth Manchester-MurphySupreme Court of Vermont · 2024
  4. Victoria diMonda v. Lincoln National Corp. D/B/A Lincoln Financial GroupSupreme Court of Vermont · 2025
  5. USGen New England, Inc. v. Town of RockinghamSupreme Court of Vermont · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API