Legal Opinion · Dissent

Berge v. State

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided November 9, 2006No. 05-437Published

1Dissent

Reiber, C.J.,

¶ 20. dissenting. Because I believe that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment to the State, I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion amply details the underlying facts; I write briefly to express my disagreement with the legal conclusions therein.

¶ 21. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment rested largely on Maine and New York cases standing for the proposition that access to a public road via navigable water defeats a claim for strict necessity. See Murch v. Nash, 861 A.2d 645, 652 (Me. 2004) (holding that while “absolute physical impossibility” is…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hyde v. Town of JamaicaSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
  2. Littlefield v. HubbardSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1925
  3. Burling v. LeiterMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Dee v. KingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1901
  5. McQuinn v. TantaloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973

4 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