 |
| Yes, this is a calendar |
Each week, we do a quick summary of the cases issued over the past week for our writers and for the VTAJ listserve. To keep our readers up to date as decisions are issued, we're going to start publishing those weekly summaries here. Enjoy!
SCOV issued three opinions May 8.
First up is a grain supplier’s collections case. Plaintiff is an agricultural supplier and sued dairy farmers for unpaid bills. While plaintiff prevailed below, the trial court denied its motion for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff argues on appeal that a term on the invoices—that defendants never objected to—became part of the contract under Vermont’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code and authorized attorney’s fees. SCOV says, “You might have a point there, plaintiff,” and while SCOV affirms the rest of the trial court’s decision, it kicks this one back for the trial court to consider whether plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees. At first I thought this was Justice Cohen’s first published opinion for SCOV, but it turns out his first published opinion (not counting per curiam) was State v. Galloway, 2020 VT 29 (summarized here)—just in case that ever comes up at trivia night. Bourdeau Bros., Inc. v. Boissonneault Family Farm, Inc., 2020 VT 35.
Our second case is a likely civil procedure bar exam question next year. This is an interlocutory appeal of class certification in a Rule 75 (review of governmental action) petition. Inmates in an opioid management medication program argue that the state’s medication-assisted program doesn’t meet prevailing medical standards in violation of Vermont law. The trial court certified a class. SCOV reverses the class certification in a short-circuiting manner by reasoning that neither the named plaintiff nor any of the members of the class had exhausted all administrative remedies—a prerequisite to bringing a Rule 75 action—that does the whole case in, depriving the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction. If you’ve never heard of the vicarious-exhaustion doctrine before, this will fill you in. Mullinex v. Menard, 2020 VT 33.
Our last case for the week deals with termination of parental rights. Both parents voluntarily relinquished their rights at a hearing. The children’s attorney and the children’s guardian ad litem didn’t think that was such a hot idea and didn’t consent. The trial court terminated parents’ residual rights anyway. On appeal, SCOV reverses, concluding that without the children’s consent, the court lacked authority to modify the previously entered disposition order (which didn’t contemplate termination) over the children’s objection. Back to the trial court for this one. In re A.W., 2020 VT 34.
Comments
Post a Comment