Legal Opinion

Mooney v. Town of Stowe

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided February 8, 2008No. 07-010PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPearson, J.

¶ 1. February 8, 2008. Plaintiff Joseph Mooney appeals from summary judgment. The trial court ruled that plaintiff’s rights were not violated when defendant Town of Stowe refused to warn a decomposed budget for approval by Australian ballot for the 2006 town meeting, as was mandated by a majority vote of Stowe residents at an earlier special meeting. We affirm.

¶ 2. Plaintiff is a resident of, and registered voter in, the Town of Stowe. In November 2005, he attended a duly warned special town meeting called by the Town selectboard. The agenda for the meeting, as warned, was for legal voters to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Dulude v. Fletcher Allen Health Care, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2002
  2. Kirchner v. GiebinkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1988
  3. State v. PecoraSupreme Court of Vermont · 2007

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. In re Beliveau NOV, Town of Fairfax v. BeliveauSupreme Court of Vermont · 2013
  2. Gade v. Chittenden Solid Waste DistrictSupreme Court of Vermont · 2009
  3. In re Burlington Airport PermitSupreme Court of Vermont · 2014
  4. In re Petition of VTel Wireless Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2015
  5. Audet WW System & Potable Water Supply PermitVermont Superior Court · 2011

17 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