Vermont Bar Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2 - Page 15 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unreported, May 31, 2012; Deptula v. Kane, surpra, note 41; Roberts v. Chimileski, supra, note 13. 40 Cobb v. Gibson, unpublished, June 2002. 41 Russo v. Griffin, 147 Vt. 20 (1986); Meller v. Bartlett, 154 Vt. 622 (1990). 42 “Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Motion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