Audet v. Koier

Supreme Court of Vermont

Audet v. Koier

595 A.2d 279, 157 Vt. 637, 1991 Vt. LEXIS 112

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedJune 10, 1991

DocketNo. 90-230

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 595 A.2d 279 (Audet v. Koier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Audet v. Koier, 595 A.2d 279, 157 Vt. 637, 1991 Vt. LEXIS 112 (Vt. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appellant, plaintiff in a negligence action, has appealed from an adverse jury verdict in forma pauperis and seeks a transcript at the expense of the state. The trial court directed the preparation of a partial transcript at state expense, and the matter is here for approval of this Court as required by V.R.A.P. 10(b). The authority for a state-paid transcript on appeal is contained in V.R.A.P. 24(d): “If an appellant is proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal, all or part of the transcript may be prepared at the expense of the state when required by law.” The Reporter’s Notes to the rule indicate that the requirement to supply the transcript would normally be based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Reporter’s Notes to 1982 Amendments to V.R.A.P. 24. Appellant asks us to read this rule, and the companion provisions of V.R.A.P. 10(b)(1), as creating an entitlement to a transcript for litigants who are here in forma pauperis or, at a minimum, authority for the court to require the state to pay for the transcript in any such case.

The rule was clearly drafted to implement entitlements to state-funded transcripts created outside the rules. It does not itself create an entitlement to a transcript. See Amos v. Department of Health & Rehab. Services, 416 So. 2d 841, 842 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982). As appellant concedes, no statute creates a right to a transcript here. Neither the Federal nor the Vermont Constitution create an entitlement. See Almarez v. Carpenter, 347 F. Supp. 597, 603 (D. Colo. 1972) (Federal Constitution); Almarez v. Carpenter, 173 Colo. 284, 289-93, 477 P.2d 792, 795-97 (1970) (Federal and Colorado Constitution); Hodgdon v. Gallagher, 113 N.H. 185, 186, 304 A.2d 375, 376 (1973) (Federal Constitution). Thus, we are without authority to require the state to pay for a transcript in this ease.

The trial court was in error in ordering a transcript at state expense. The request for approval of that order is denied, and the matter is remanded to the Lamoille Superior Court for consideration of alternatives under V.R.A.P. 10(e) to allow the appeal to proceed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appellant, plaintiff in a negligence action, has appealed from an adverse jury verdict in forma pauperis and seeks a transcript at the expense of the state. The trial court directed the preparation of a partial transcript at state expense, and the matter is here for approval of this Court as required by V.R.A.P. 10(b). The authority for a state-paid transcript on appeal is contained in V.R.A.P. 24(d): “If an appellant is proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal, all or part of the transcript may be prepared at the expense of the state when required by law.” The Reporter’s Notes to the rule indicate that the requirement to supply the transcript would normally be based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Reporter’s Notes to 1982 Amendments to V.R.A.P. 24. Appellant asks us to read this rule, and the companion provisions of V.R.A.P. 10(b)(1), as creating an entitlement to a transcript for litigants who are here in forma pauperis or, at a minimum, authority for the court to require the state to pay for the transcript in any such case.

The rule was clearly drafted to implement entitlements to state-funded transcripts created outside the rules. It does not itself create an entitlement to a transcript. See Amos v. Department of Health & Rehab. Services, 416 So. 2d 841, 842 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982). As appellant concedes, no statute creates a right to a transcript here. Neither the Federal nor the Vermont Constitution create an entitlement. See Almarez v. Carpenter, 347 F. Supp. 597, 603 (D. Colo. 1972) (Federal Constitution); Almarez v. Carpenter, 173 Colo. 284, 289-93, 477 P.2d 792, 795-97 (1970) (Federal and Colorado Constitution); Hodgdon v. Gallagher, 113 N.H. 185, 186, 304 A.2d 375, 376 (1973) (Federal Constitution). Thus, we are without authority to require the state to pay for a transcript in this ease.

The trial court was in error in ordering a transcript at state expense. The request for approval of that order is denied, and the matter is remanded to the Lamoille Superior Court for consideration of alternatives under V.R.A.P. 10(e) to allow the appeal to proceed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

595 A.2d 279, 157 Vt. 637, 1991 Vt. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/audet-v-koier-vt-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack