Vermont law provides that a defendant can be convicted of murder, even if he did not commit the murder and even if he had no intention of committing a murder.
A defendant argues that a bank is not eligible for restitution in a fraudulent check case because it is not a “direct victim.”
Mother files for custody of baby in Vermont; Father files in Virginia. Which state has jurisdiction?
Without transcripts, the Supreme Court is going to assume that the trial court had some support for the decisions it made.
In a 2006 statute, the Legislature specifically limited municipalities’ authorities to prohibit or limit sport shooting at existing shooting ranges.
A juvenile court judge concluded a termination of parental rights hearing when the mother was late to court.
After a prisoner accused of fighting is found not guilty, prison officials convene a second hearing and present a report that has changed the date of the incident.
The defendant was charged with taking trees from his neighbor’s property. He appeals a ruling that convicted him under a new statute.
A law office and its client agree that a retainer will be paid from a structured settlement, but a trial court says that is contrary to legislative intent.
Compensatory maintenance isn’t spelled out in our statutes, but does end up happening in permanent maintenance situations. It’s appropriate where the working spouse continues to get the benefit of the other spouse even after the marriage ends.
A mother convicted of custodial interference was released on probation with the condition she wear an electronic monitoring device. When her probation officer notices the device was frequently disconnected, the woman claimed the charging unit interfered with her phone and she had to unplug it.
If a person is tried for DUI when they have a prior DUI conviction, the jury cannot know about the prior conviction until after they reach a verdict. Then the State must prove the first conviction before a stepped-up penalty can be imposed.
In deciding whether or not to uphold a defendant’s convictions, the Supreme Court considers whether his convictions violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
This case focuses around whether one slip-up during a juvenile case is enough to make you lose your rights to your kids. It’s not, usually.