Burlington 802.864.0217       Middlebury 802.388.6356 Pay Your Bill

Appeals

Appeals

Over the years, we have handled hundreds of appeals for our clients. Our attorneys have appeared before administrative agencies, the Vermont Supreme Court, and federal appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court. Many of our attorneys have served as judicial law clerks in the Vermont Supreme Court or in the federal courts. Our extensive resources allow us to produce high-quality appellate briefs and oral arguments for our clients, or for trial counsel who need assistance on appeal.

Many of our appeals have resulted in groundbreaking decisions involving fundamental rights. We have been involved in a number of major civil rights cases in Vermont, including:

Many other cases have been significant primarily to our clients, but nonetheless established important legal principles. For example:

  • In family law, Manosh v. Manosh established the ability to re-open property settlement based upon unconscionability and Klein v. Klein established the parameters for permanent spousal maintenance.
  • In the personal injury field: Dalury v. S-K-I, Ltd. held that a ski area’s exculpatory release was void as contrary to public policy; Peck v. Counseling Service of Addison County, Inc. established the duty of mental health practitioners to warn of potential violence by patients; and Arnold v. Palmer allowed an employee who died as a result of working in an unsafe building to pursue the owner.
  • In workers’ compensation law, Lyons v. Chittenden Central Supervisory Union established that student teachers were employees eligible for workers’ compensation when injured on the job, not volunteers, and Shaw v. Dutton Berry Farm established that workers’ compensation covers employees injured when their job placed them in the position in which they were ultimately injured, regardless of whether or not they were working at the time of injury.
  • In employment law, Foote v. Simmonds Precision Products Co., Inc. established the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the employment context.
  • In the insurance context, Cooperative Fire Ins. v. White Caps, Inc. abolished the longstanding rule that untimely notice automatically results in forfeiture under insurance policies; Carr v. Peerless Insurance established that the remedy for improper cancellation of an insurance policy by a premium finance company are the benefits that the policy would have provided if not improperly cancelled; and C.M. v. Fletcher Allen Health Care decided an important procedural issue of first impression under the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.
  • In the area of real estate, State v. Central Vermont Railway, Inc. construed the extent of the public trust doctrine.
  • In criminal law, Hernandez v. U.S., held that an attorney’s failure to prosecute an appeal in a timely manner on behalf of a criminal defendant constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
  • In the environmental field, Allen v. Uni-First Corp., established the right to recover for “stigma” damages in pollution cases; Sullivan v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., held that the remedy of medical monitoring is permitted in cases of environmental exposure to toxic substances; and International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, which went to the United States Supreme Court, established that citizens of one state injured by pollution emanating from another state are not pre-empted by federal regulations from common-law recoveries.