Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)

Citation
Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
Parent Document
Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
Jurisdiction
Vermont (state)
Effective Date
2005-04-13

Full Text

721 chars
Ex parte U.S. Gypsum Co., 533 So. 2d 557, 560 (Ala. 1988) (footnote omitted); see also Barrett v. United, States, 105 F.3d 793, 795 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting that although court can make handwritten order on a paper filed by a party, “care must be taken, especially where a party is proceeding pro se, to ensure that the order and its consequences are communicated clearly”). Tenant had no responsibility to file an answer and counterclaims until ten days after the court ruled on the motion to dismiss or “explicitly” postponed action on it to the hearing on the merits. United States v. Snider, 779 F.2d 1151, 1157 (6th Cir. 1985). We cannot find an explicit postponement here. Reversed and judgment entered for defendant.