Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Citation
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Parent Document
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2005-01-05
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4490187/riley-v-dempsey/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (45)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
- Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
Full Text
663 charsThere do not appear to be any Supreme Court cases directly addressing whether pet damage falls within “normal wear and tear.” However, when courts are called upon to apply a statute under new circumstances, one factor to consider is the common understanding of the words. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 200 (1999). In addition, the express language of the statute calls for consideration of “the reasonable use for which the rental unit is intended.” Thus it was not error for the Small Claims Court to consider the “common understanding” of the words, nor was it error for the court to consider the explicit reference to pets in the first written lease.