www.vtbar.org
Knott v. Pratt, 158 Vt. 334, 335 (1992).
Lamothe Cohen v. Cohen & Rice Law Firm, unreported, May 31, 2012; Deptula v. Kane, surpra,
note 41; Roberts v. Chimileski, supra, note 13.
40
Cobb v. Gibson, unpublished, June 2002.
41
Russo v. Griffin, 147 Vt. 20 (1986); Meller v.
Bartlett, 154 Vt. 622 (1990).
42
“Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and/or Motion in Limine and Plaintiff’s
Motion in Limine,” Langrock, Sperry & Wool, LLP
v. Felis, March 9, 2015, Docket No. 123313.
43
“Decision Re: Motions in Limine,” Technine,
Inc. v. Simonds, September 24, 2012, Docket
No. S12102009.
44
Hedges v. Durrance, 175 Vt. 588 (2003).
45
Bovee v. Gravel, 174 Vt. 486 (2002).
46
Vanderhoof v. Cleary, 168 Vt. 555 (1998); 11
V.S.A. § 6.22(b).
47
“Ruling on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment,” Handverger v. City of Winooski, December 6, 2009, Docket No. S1434-08 CnC.
48
“Decisions on Motion to Dismiss and Motion
to File Surreply,” New England Youth Theatre,
Inc. v. Environmental Compliance Services, Inc.,
February 26, 2013, Docket No. 138-4-12 Wmcv.
49
Marshall v. Joy, 17 Vt. 546 (1845).
50
Bloomer v. Gibson, supra, note 18.
51
Cannata v. Wiener, 173 Vt. 528 (2001).
52
Bourne v. Lajoie, 149 Vt. 45 (1987).
53
Smalley v. Soragen, 30 Vt. 2 (1856).
54
Nixon v. Phelps, 29 Vt. 198, 204 (1857).
55
Goodyear Metallic Rubber Co. v. Baker’s Estate, 81 Vt. 39 (1908).
56
Crooker v. Hutchinson, supra, note 2.
57
“Decision on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,” First American Title Ins. Co. v.
Wolfe, September 26, 2012, Docket No. 110-510 Oecv.
58
“Decision on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,” First American Title Ins. Co. v.
Wolfe, September 26, 2012, Docket No. 110-510 Oecv.
59
“Decision on Motion for Summary Judgment
on Court III,” Schreck v. Nitka, September 1,
2009, Docket No. 508-8-08 Wrcv.
60
Webb v. Leclair, 2007 VT 65 ¶ 23.
61
For more good advice, read all 150 pages of
J. Michael Hayes, “Avoiding Legal Malpractice
Claims in Litigation,” 46 AmJur Trials 325 (May
2016 Update). Then take a good long walk. Another good resource is Herbert Ogden’s “Legal
Malpractice Law—State of Vermont,” prepared
for the ABA Professional Liability Committee 50
State Survey.
62
Hulstrand, Anderson, Larson & Boyland v.
Rogers, 386 N.W.2d 302, 304 (Minn. App. 1986).
38
39
THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • SUMMER 2016
Ruminations
‘strong peculiarities,’ of great obstinacy and vindictiveness, and judgments for damages are ineffective to induce him to lower the dam, and
thus remove the nuisance, as they only cause
him to curse the court, damn the lawyers, and to
assert that he will not lower his dam.” Harmon v.
Carter, 59 S.W. 656, 657 (1900).
In the Proceedings of the Kansas Bar Association for 1897, the line is reported this way:
“It is the axiom of the Lex Non Scripta that every defeated litigant and his counsel may freely
‘cuss’ the court, and it has been said that very
few defeated litigants, and there is one at least
and sometimes more, in every case, fail to avail
themselves of this inalienable and prehistoric
right.”
The Milwaukee Sentinel in 1893 reported on
William E. Mason’s comments on his opponent’s
reaction to a court decision. “My friends on the
other side are enjoying the divine right of an attorney to stand on the sidewalk and ‘cuss’ the
court. That is the only relief they have left and I
do not begrudge it to them.” “Judge goggin’s
side,” the milWaukee sentinel, septemBer 2, 1893.
That is as far as this exploration of a memorable line has taken me. No doubt it enjoyed