Vermont Supreme Court

Carl Wetherby and Marina Wetherby v. Leland Vincent, 2007 Vt 276 (March 3, 2008) and Carl Wetherby and Marina Wetherby v. Leland Vincent, 2005 Vt 417 (September 9, 2006) MSK successfully represented purchasers in a specific performance lawsuit to enforce a real estate contract in Richford, Vermont.

Christopher Khamnei and Holley Zanes v. Mara Coven, 2007 Vt 200 (December 19, 2007) MSK successfully defended a lawsuit claiming its client’s daycare violated a covenant that the property only be used as a single family residence.

In Re Vermont RSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, [Newport Church] 2007 Vt 23 (April 2, 2007) MSK represented Verizon Wireless in an appeal of a ruling by the Vermont Environmental Board that the installation of six antennas in two church bell towers does not trigger Act 250 jurisdiction.

Cupola Golf Course, Inc. v. Dooley, 2006 Vt 25 (April 14, 2006) MSK represented a landowner regarding the interpretation of a view easement. The opposing party in the case involved was a current justice of the Vermont Supreme Court.

Erhart v. Agency of Transportation, 2006 Vt 68 (February 14, 2006) One of a number of cases in which MSK represented business owners on Route 7 affected by the widening of Route 7 in South Burlington and Shelburne, Vermont. This particular case involved the issue of whether landowners were entitled to compensation for loss of […]

In Re Curtis, 179 Vt 620 (January 19, 2006) MSK represented Verizon Wireless in these two appeals in which the Vermont Supreme Court held that Verizon Wireless had satisfied all of the requirements for local permit issuance and that res judicata barred any further challenges to that permit.

In re Hinsdale Farm, 177 Vt. 115 (August 13, 2004) Attorney Murphy represented a farm owner whose farm had been classified as a Large Farm Operation (“LFO”) in regard to the exemption from jurisdiction of the Water Resources Board over certain agricultural activities.

In re Shantee Point, Inc., 174 Vt. 248 (October 4, 2002) Attorney Murphy represented landowners in regard to the relocation of a private road. The case involved whether the road was private or dedicated to the public, and whether permits were required for its relocation.