State v. Weisler, State v. King
Supreme Court of Vermont
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Dooley, J.,
¶ 45. concurring and dissenting. The majority correctly acknowledges that the standard-of-review issue in this case conceals “layers of complexity” previously unexamined by this Court. Ante, ¶ 8. I am pleased that we are finally acknowledging that in State v. Sprague, 2003 VT 20, ¶ 24, 175 Vt. 123, 824 A.2d 539, State v. Stevens, 2004 VT 23, ¶ 10, 176 Vt. 613, 848 A.2d 330 (mem.), and State v. Sole, 2009 VT 24, ¶23, 185 Vt. 504, 974 A.2d 587, we have overruled decades of standard-of-review jurisprudence with no recognition that we have done so and no analysis of the relative merit…
2Cases cited61 opinions
- Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Ornelas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Florida v. BostickSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- United States v. ArvizuSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.