Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
In Re Reapportionment of Town of Hartland
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided January 27, 1993No. 92-088, 92-136, 92-230, 92-259, 92-261 and 92-291Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDooley, J.
I concur in parts I, 111(B) (Springfield), III(C) (Berlin), 111(D) (Hartland), III(E) (Shrewsbury), and III(F) (Richford). I do not concur in part 111(A) (Montgomery) and the standard of review analysis in part II on which that result is based. I would deny the Montgomery petition along with the others. In my view the disposition of the Montgomery petition is an unwarranted interference with the legislative function that will in future years mire this Court in reapportionment petitions for no legitimate purpose.
The entire case put forward by the Town of Montgomery consisted of a short…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Karcher v. DaggettSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Townsend v. YeomansSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- State ex rel. Lamb v. CunninghamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Holmes v. FarmerSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1984
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.