pe2 housing v baker, No. 25-cv-5036 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024)

Citation: pe2 housing v baker, No. 25-cv-5036 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024)
Parent Document: pe2 housing v baker, No. 25-cv-5036 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2024-11-01
Original Source: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/20324 ↗

Full Text

704 chars

the court for an order shall be by motion which … shall state with particularity … a concise
statement of the … law relied on …”) (emphasis supplied); In re Bellows Falls Hydroelectric
Project Water Quality Cert. Appeal, 2026 WL 449597, at *4 (Vt. Super. Ct., Env. Div. Jan. 23,
2026) (McLean, Supr. J.) (“[n]owhere in the[] motion … did [Defendant] … identify a single rule
on which the motion was premised. The court was left wholly to speculate about how, and under
what Rule(s), it was to evaluate [Defendant’s] request[]”).
2 Aff'd sub nom. CSC Upshot Ventures I, L.P. v. Gandhi-Kapoor, 326 A.3d 369 (Del. 2024)
3 Some courts have drawn a distinction between factual and facial challenges under Rule

Other Sections in This Document (102)

Full Text