Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Verizon Wireless Barton Permit

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided July 9, 2010No. 2009-201Published

1Dissent

Davenport, Supr. J.,

¶25. Specially Assigned, dissenting. The line between fundamental fairness and unfair indulgence in the *275treatment of self-represented litigants is not always clear. What is clear is this Court’s “promise to protect the rights of pro se litigants,” In re Estate of Knott, 149 Vt. 245, 247, 542 A.2d 297, 298 (1988) (Dooley, J., dissenting), and ensure that their inexperience does not permit “unfair imposition or unconscionable advantage” to be gained at their expense. Vahlteich v. Knott, 139 Vt. 588, 590, 433 A.2d 287, 288 (1981). Was the trial court’s dismissal of neighbors’…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Desjarlais v. GilmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1983
  2. Vahlteich v. KnottSupreme Court of Vermont · 1981
  3. Bingham v. TenneySupreme Court of Vermont · 1990
  4. Mathieu Enterprises, Inc. v. Patsy's CompaniesSupreme Court of Vermont · 2009
  5. In re Estate of KnottSupreme Court of Vermont · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API