The case involved a secured creditor and the bankruptcy trustee appealing the bankruptcy court's decision to allow a debtor's claim of a $25,000 homestead exemption in newly acquired property under Vermont law in a Chapter 7 liquidation. The district court dismissed the trustee's appeal for failure to comply with bankruptcy rules and prosecute the case, and dismissed the creditor's appeal as untimely under the applicable rules for filing notices of appeal. The court reasoned that strict adherence to procedural timelines in Interim Bankruptcy Rules 8006, 802, and others was required, and no proper extension was sought or granted, though it noted that the underlying exemption claim would have been upheld on the merits due to the timing of homestead acquisition and Vermont statutes protecting new homesteads acquired with non-debtor funds.
This case concerned a long-running dispute over a proposed highway project (Project 9) along U.S. Route 7 in Vermont that would border the Lye Brook Wilderness area, a protected public recreation and park land. An injunction issued in 1972 barred construction until defendants complied with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act and related statutes by filing a statement showing no feasible and prudent alternative to the land use and all possible measures to minimize harm. After defendants submitted a final supplemental 4(f) statement in 1977, the court considered whether it satisfied those requirements, reviewing alternatives such as upgrading existing Route 7 and assessing impacts on the wilderness area and other resources. The court evaluated the statement's adequacy in light of the statutory standards and prior rulings limiting the project to two-lane construction.
This case involved a claim for indemnity by New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. (Telco) against Central Vermont Public Service Corp. (CV) and Rutland Cable TV, Inc., after Telco settled a lawsuit with an injured CV employee whose pole fell due to rot and added stress. The court held that CV breached its contractual duty under a joint use agreement by failing to notify Telco of changes to its circuits and attachments, which activated the indemnity clause making CV liable for the $50,000 settlement plus fees. The claim against Cable TV was dismissed because CV also failed to notify it of the changes as required. Telco was not found negligent as the pole was not due for inspection.
business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability
This case involved a pro se congressional primary candidate who sued a Vermont television station and the FCC seeking a temporary restraining order requiring the station to provide free airtime to offset paid political ads by wealthier opponents under the equal-time provisions of the Federal Communications Act (47 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(7) and 315). The plaintiff did not allege denial of paid access or violations of the fairness doctrine but argued that accepting paid ads triggered an obligation to offer balancing free coverage. The court denied the TRO and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing the FCC staff denial to the full Commission, and the court held that judicial intervention would improperly interfere with First Amendment-protected broadcasting decisions.
The case concerned the United States seeking equitable relief against Bushey and its affiliated corporations, which operated a fleet of tank barges and tugs transporting petroleum products on Lake Champlain and had been involved in nine oil spills between 1967 and 1972. The court made extensive findings regarding the integrated corporate structure, the volume of interstate petroleum shipments, the history of spills, and the inadequacy of existing federal licensing and inspection requirements to prevent environmental harm. It decided to grant injunctive relief by imposing specific operational mandates, such as direct voice communications during offloading, a ban on alcohol aboard vessels, contingency plans for spills, and crew certification requirements. The core reasoning rested on the court's equitable authority to address the ongoing threat of pollution to navigable waters when statutory mechanisms had not been invoked and monetary remedies could not fully compensate for the damage.
The case concerned a motion to dissolve an injunction against construction of a Bennington-to-Manchester segment of Route 7 in Vermont, after an environmental impact statement was prepared and filed under NEPA and related statutes. The court addressed four issues: whether the EIS was prepared under proper federal Department of Transportation supervision rather than solely by the state, whether its contents satisfied NEPA's requirements, whether the statement needed to cover the entire multi-state Route 7 corridor, and how the project affected U.S. Forest Service lands under §4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Evidence was taken on the preparation process, which involved state highway engineers working with FHWA officials, public comments, and reviews by federal task forces, along with assessments of land-use impacts, water quality, and forest effects. The court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on each issue to decide whether the EIS was adequate.