This blog’s purpose is to keep the general public abreast of current Vermont law. We will post our thoughts on the latest Vermont Supreme Court decisions, legislative changes, and other items of current interest.
The postings here are for informational purposes only and are not to be considered legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by your use of this site.
In 2010, I wrote a law review article on the NFL’s tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(6). The article was cited in Senator Tom Coburn’s 2012 Wastebook. Lately, the article has gotten a fair amount of press and some credit for Coburn’s recent legislative amendments.
In the shameless-self-promotion vein, I offer you the following links:
Vermont Lawyer in the National News
The U.S. Senate is going after NFL’s non-profit status, and it’s about time
Tom Coburn Wants To Revoke Sports Leagues’ Tax-Exempt Charity Status
The NFL Is A Tax-Exempt Organization — But One Senator Wants To Change That
We’re going to take a leap here and posit that mobile bandwidth usage historically hasn’t been a problem in rural and semi-rural Vermont—coverage has been so sporadic that connecting to a network long enough to run data usage to a significant amount has likely been difficult for most mobile customers. When so-called smartphones first came on the scene, AT&T offered an unlimited data plan; many of us signed up for it.
Though AT&T no longer offers an “unlimited” data plan, customers who signed up for “unlimited” before the change to tiered plans are grandfathered in and can continue to purchase the unlimited data plan as previously. Continue Reading »
If you’ve ever had trouble wrapping presents, here’s a helpful tutorial from “Chip’s Tips.” WARNING: May contain language not suitable for work (or children).
This summary of a recent Vermont Supreme Court case will also be posted on the SCOV Law Blog in more or less the same form.
Taylor v. Fletcher Allen Health Care, 2012 VT 86
Being a pro ser ain’t easy.
Plaintiff sued Fletcher Allen Health Care (FAHC) for medical negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress, in connection with her medical care following lumbar-spine surgery. She didn’t disclose any expert witnesses and so FAHC moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion on the basis that Plaintiff couldn’t prove her claims without expert testimony. A somewhat-divided SCOV affirms. Continue Reading »
This summary of a recent Vermont Supreme Court case will also be posted on the SCOV Law Blog in more or less the same form.
State v. Paro, 2012 VT 53 (mem.)
Why reinvent the wheel? Here’s how the SCOV frames it: “This case presents a simple set of facts and a single question for review: whether a truck idling in the middle of the night in the parking lot of an auto repair shop that had previously been burglarized is sufficient to give police reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity.” The SCOV finds that it does not and reverses the trial court. Continue Reading »
This summary of a recent Vermont Supreme Court case will also be posted on the SCOV Law Blog in more or less the same form.
Pcolar v. Casella Waste Systems, Inc., 2012 VT 58
Today’s lesson in modified-comparative negligence comes to us courtesy of a Chittenden County jury verdict and my first-year torts class.
In the Unnamed Partner’s heyday, contributory negligence barred recovery if a Plaintiff had any part in bringing about the harm complained of. As time passed, this was thought too harsh, and so, comparative negligence was born. Strict comparative negligence means that whatever degree of fault the plaintiff contributed to his or her injuries reduces the plaintiff’s recovery proportionately. In a modified-comparative-negligence jurisdiction, like Vermont, the Plaintiff can recover only if the plaintiff was half or less at fault; if the plaintiff was more than half at fault, the plaintiff recovers nothing. There are 49% and 51% rules, and other variations. But that’s all I can remember from my first-year torts class. If you have a close case, you should probably look it up. Getting your legal education from this blawg is like getting your literature from Reader’s Digest: sure, it’s better than nothing, but not much.
In an effort to make this site more interesting for visitors, here’s what we’ve come up with. If you have a general legal question, post it in the comments on this post. We’ll answer your question, subject to our standard disclaimer. PLEASE keep questions general in nature and DON’T include any personal information. Naturally, sarcastic questions will beget sarcastic responses.
And “like” us on Facebook.
We’ve decided that our comment policy will be to approve all comments. At first, we were looking through and deciding which comments were “spammy” and which comments were not, but that seems all un-American and unconstitutional. We don’t want to be all Chick-Fil-A-y. Have fun.
