Legal Opinion

Wild v. Brooks

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided August 13, 2004No. 03-077PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

¶ 1. Plaintiff George Wild initiated this action to permanently enjoin the operation of a commercial shooting range that borders his property. The superior court dismissed Wild’s suit after trial, concluding that, at the time of the trial, the terms of the range’s Act 250 permit prohibited operations for a period of up to ten years, therefore an injunction could not issue because there was no activity to enjoin and would not likely be any in the foreseeable future. Alternatively, it ruled that 10 V.S.A. § 5227(b) immunized defendants from suits seeking injunctions related to nuisance noise.…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Weinstein v. BradfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. United States v. Oregon State Medical SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  3. Parker v. Town of MiltonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1998
  4. In re P.S.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1997
  5. In Re Appeal of Bennington School, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2004

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Holton v. Department of Employment & TrainingSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005
  2. Houston v. Town of WaitsfieldSupreme Court of Vermont · 2007
  3. Ondovchik Family Ltd. Partnership v. Agency of TransportationSupreme Court of Vermont · 2010
  4. Roy v. Woodstock Community Trust, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2014
  5. Frances Nesti v. Agency of TransportationSupreme Court of Vermont · 2023

7 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