Legal Opinion · Dissent

Raynes v. Rogers

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided April 18, 2008No. 2006-342Published

1Dissent

*522Burgess, J.,

¶ 16. dissenting. Just to be clear: the majority holds that when an ill-meaning relative, or past or present disgruntled lover, dating partner, roommate or housemate enters your home and, in front of you, grabs your property and runs off with it, or even destroys it, you may not lawfully resist. If you do, says the majority, you are liable to be branded an abuser by the court and subjected to a relief-from-abuse order. This flies in the face of common sense and the centuries old recognition of our right to defend property at common law.3

¶ 17. Without any express revocation of that…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. E. B. & A. C. Whiting Co. v. City of BurlingtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1934
  2. State v. HazeltonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2006
  3. State v. LongleySupreme Court of Vermont · 2007
  4. State v. LongleySupreme Court of Vermont · 2007
  5. State v. DownerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1836

8 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