Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Heidi Corcoran Wener v. Erik Wener

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided September 16, 2016No. 2015-316Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Skoglund, J.,

¶ 30. concurring and dissenting. In reversing on a ground that no party has raised, the majority misconstrues the record and misstates the law. The trial court obviously considered and found changed circumstances with respect to both legal and physical rights and responsibilities and it applied the correct standard in doing so. The court acknowledged the case law, relied upon here by the majority, and largely distinguished it because neither parent here had sole physical custody. The key questions before the court were which parent should have the right to determine where the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Hoover (Letourneau) v. HooverSupreme Court of Vermont · 2000
  2. DeBeaumont v. GoodrichSupreme Court of Vermont · 1994
  3. Meyncke v. MeynckeSupreme Court of Vermont · 2009
  4. Payrits v. PayritsSupreme Court of Vermont · 2000
  5. Kilduff v. WilleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1988

9 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