Clemenson v. Clemenson

Supreme Court of Vermont

Clemenson v. Clemenson

385 A.2d 1080, 136 Vt. 71, 1978 Vt. LEXIS 688

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedApril 4, 1978

DocketNo. 249-77

StatusPublished

This text of 385 A.2d 1080 (Clemenson v. Clemenson) 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

Clemenson v. Clemenson, 385 A.2d 1080, 136 Vt. 71, 1978 Vt. LEXIS 688 (Vt. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court below issued a modification order granting appellee the right to visit his 12 year old son for two weeks at the place of his (appellee’s) choosing. Appellant, who has custody of the child, is the former spouse of the appellee. Appellant claims that the evidence presented below does not support the court’s findings, and in turn that the findings do not support the order.

Review of the evidence discloses that the material findings of the lower court are supported by the evidence. Nor does the record show that the discretion of the court in issuing the order was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable, which is the recognized test in this state. Nichols v. Nichols, 134 Vt. 316, 318, 360 A.2d 85, 86 (1976); Lafko v. Lafko, 127 Vt. 609, 619, 256 A.2d 166 (1969).

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The court below issued a modification order granting appellee the right to visit his 12 year old son for two weeks at the place of his (appellee’s) choosing. Appellant, who has custody of the child, is the former spouse of the appellee. Appellant claims that the evidence presented below does not support the court’s findings, and in turn that the findings do not support the order.

Review of the evidence discloses that the material findings of the lower court are supported by the evidence. Nor does the record show that the discretion of the court in issuing the order was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable, which is the recognized test in this state. Nichols v. Nichols, 134 Vt. 316, 318, 360 A.2d 85, 86 (1976); Lafko v. Lafko, 127 Vt. 609, 619, 256 A.2d 166 (1969).

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

385 A.2d 1080, 136 Vt. 71, 1978 Vt. LEXIS 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clemenson-v-clemenson-vt-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack