Berge v. State
Supreme Court of Vermont
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
- Hyde v. Town of JamaicaSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Littlefield v. HubbardSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1925
- Burling v. LeiterMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
- Dee v. KingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1901
- 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.