LaBrie, Inc. v. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation

Supreme Court of Vermont

LaBrie, Inc. v. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation

596 A.2d 354, 157 Vt. 642, 1991 Vt. LEXIS 134

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedJuly 9, 1991

Docket90-111

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 596 A.2d 354 (LaBrie, Inc. v. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation) 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

LaBrie, Inc. v. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, 596 A.2d 354, 157 Vt. 642, 1991 Vt. LEXIS 134 (Vt. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

This action was dismissed by the superior court because the plaintiff corporation is being represented by one of its stockholders and officers, a nonlawyer, who refuses to obtain counsel for it. We concur with the trial court that generally a corporation must appear through counsel and that the failure to obtain counsel in this case was grounds for dismissal. See Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, 722 F.2d 20, 22 (2d Cir. 1983). The record does not support plaintiff’s claim that the corporation cannot afford counsel so that a requirement of counsel will deny the corporation access to the courts. Thus, there is no factual basis for plaintiff’s argument that the counsel requirement offends Chapter I, Article 4 of the Vermont Constitution. Nor does the record support plaintiff’s argument that one superior judge denied a motion to dismiss on the same ground as the action was eventually dismissed. Since the entry order of the first superior judge does not mention the counsel issue, we conclude that the decisions were on separate grounds and there was no horizontal appeal from one judge to another. See In re Knapp, 152 Vt. 59, 62-63, 564 A.2d 1064, 1065-66 (1989). There was no judge shopping or violation of V.R.C.P. 11.

Affirmed.

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

This action was dismissed by the superior court because the plaintiff corporation is being represented by one of its stockholders and officers, a nonlawyer, who refuses to obtain counsel for it. We concur with the trial court that generally a corporation must appear through counsel and that the failure to obtain counsel in this case was grounds for dismissal. See Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, 722 F.2d 20, 22 (2d Cir. 1983). The record does not support plaintiff’s claim that the corporation cannot afford counsel so that a requirement of counsel will deny the corporation access to the courts. Thus, there is no factual basis for plaintiff’s argument that the counsel requirement offends Chapter I, Article 4 of the Vermont Constitution. Nor does the record support plaintiff’s argument that one superior judge denied a motion to dismiss on the same ground as the action was eventually dismissed. Since the entry order of the first superior judge does not mention the counsel issue, we conclude that the decisions were on separate grounds and there was no horizontal appeal from one judge to another. See In re Knapp, 152 Vt. 59, 62-63, 564 A.2d 1064, 1065-66 (1989). There was no judge shopping or violation of V.R.C.P. 11.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

596 A.2d 354, 157 Vt. 642, 1991 Vt. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/labrie-inc-v-vermont-department-of-environmental-conservation-vt-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack