Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)

Citation
State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)
Parent Document
State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)
Jurisdiction
Vermont (state)
Effective Date
2014-05-09

Other Sections in This Document (105)

Full Text

621 chars
¶ 28. Certainly, a statute’s use of the term “shall” generally indicates that the provision is mandatory. See In re Green, 2006 VT 88, ¶ 2, 180 Vt. 597, 908 A.2d 453 (mem.) (concluding that elections statute using word “shall” and containing a specific consequence for failure to comply created a mandatory requirement). But, this is not the only relevant question. Even where a statute uses “shall,” if it does not contain a consequence for failure to act, the provision is directory. See, e.g., Shlansky v. City of Burlington, 2010 VT 90, ¶ 17, 188 Vt. 470, 13 A.3d 1075; Mullestein, 148 Vt. at 173-74, 531 A.2d at 892.