Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Weisler, State v. King

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided September 16, 2011No. 2010-040Published

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

  1. Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Ornelas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. Florida v. BostickSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. United States v. ArvizuSupreme Court of the United States · 2002

56 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