In Re Appeal of Rhodes

305 A.2d 591, 131 Vt. 308, 1973 Vt. LEXIS 307
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedMay 4, 1973
Docket22-73
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 305 A.2d 591 (In Re Appeal of Rhodes) 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
In Re Appeal of Rhodes, 305 A.2d 591, 131 Vt. 308, 1973 Vt. LEXIS 307 (Vt. 1973).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a motion to dismiss. It arises out of an appeal from the decision of the Windsor County Court in a zoning matter. The issues concern the nature and finality of county court review of decisions of the zoning board of adjustment. The moving party contends that final appellate review is in the county court, with no right of appeal to this Court.

24 V.S.A. § 4472(a) provides:

The exclusive remedy of an interested person with respect to any decision or act taken, or any failure to act, under this chapter or with respect to any one or more of the provisions of any plan or by-law shall be the appeal to the board of adjustment under section 4464 of this title, and the appeal to a county court from an adverse decision upon such appeal under section 4471 of this title.

In 24 V.S.A. § 4473 we find that the legislature has designated the board of adjustment the place for ultimately finding the facts for purposes of review. This certainly negates any de novo function in the county court in this kind of proceeding. The provisions of 3 V.S.A. §§ 801-816, and their implementation by V.R.C.P. 74, made applicable to this kind of appeal by 24 V.S.A. § 4471, do not require review in this Court where “some other court is expressly provided by law.” 3 V.S.A. § 815. The legislature has made such express provision here.

*310 There is no question but what the legislature has the power to define and designate the manner of, and forum for, appellate review, or, in the absence of any constitutional requirement, deny it. State v. Muzzy, 124 Vt. 222, 224-25, 202 A.2d 267 (1964). Without statutory authority to hear an appeal, this Court cannot do so unless there is some constitutional justification, not alluded to here. Where no direct appellate jurisdiction exists, this Court’s power of review is restricted to questions brought before it through other procedural means, such as petitions for extraordinary relief under V.R.A.P. 21, and related procedures. The motion before us must be granted.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

Handverger v. City of Winooski
2011 VT 130 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2011)
Vincent v. Vermont State Retirement Board
536 A.2d 925 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1987)
Crabbe v. Veve Associates
497 A.2d 366 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1985)
Mason v. Thetford School Board
457 A.2d 647 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1983)
Howard v. Office of the Secretary of State
435 A.2d 962 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1981)
Herald Ass'n, Inc. v. Ellison
419 A.2d 323 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1980)
Fitzpatrick v. Vermont State Retirement System
394 A.2d 1138 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1978)
Byrd v. Kehoe
388 A.2d 834 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1978)
Appeal of Pfeiffer
383 A.2d 633 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1978)
Kidder v. Thomas
365 A.2d 251 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1976)
In Re Appeal of City of Barre
365 A.2d 519 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1976)
Rhodes v. Town of Woodstock
318 A.2d 170 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1974)
Town of Barnet v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp.
313 A.2d 392 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1973)
Fisher v. Town of Marlboro
310 A.2d 119 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
305 A.2d 591, 131 Vt. 308, 1973 Vt. LEXIS 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-appeal-of-rhodes-vt-1973.