Shaw v. Barrows

359 A.2d 651, 134 Vt. 343, 1976 Vt. LEXIS 671
Supreme Court of Vermont·Decided June 1, 1976·No. 168-75·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The parties in this case came to the lower court seeking a clarification and declaration of legal rights and relationships existing between them, a remedy authorized by law. See 12 V.S.A. § 4711. The purpose of a declaratory judgment is to enunciate, so far as is requested and appropriate, the rights of the parties. Graves v. Town of Waitsfield, 130 Vt. 292, 292 A.2d 247 (1972). Clarification was not forthcoming and the entitlement to declaration was not carried out. The matter must be reversed and remanded for a proper resolution of the issues because of errors in both the determination of the facts and the failure to properly apply the proper postulates of the law.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Shaw v. Barrows, 359 A.2d 651, 134 Vt. 343, 1976 Vt. LEXIS 671 (Vt. 1976).

359 A.2d 651 (Shaw v. Barrows) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arapaho Owners Association, Inc. and Kattalia v. Alpert
199 Vt. 553 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2015)
Arapaho Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Alpert
2015 VT 93 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2015)
Griffith v. Nielsen
449 A.2d 965 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1982)
Bemis v. Lamb
383 A.2d 614 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1978)