Condosta v. Condosta

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that motion to disqualify will be denied “if it appears that the motion [to disqualify] is frivolous, or made to delay proceedings, or has no foundation justifying recusal”
• explaining that motion to disqualify will be denied “if it appears that the motion [to disqualify] is frivolous, or made to delay proceedings, or has no foundation justifying recusal”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Senesac v. Assoc. in Obstetrics & Gynecology
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1982-06-08· cited 51×
• Richard v. Richard
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1985-09-13· cited 41×
• In Re Justice Hill
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1989-09-18· cited 23×
• State v. Putnam
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1996-01-12· cited 14×
• Board of Medical Practice v. Perry-Hooker
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1981-02-03· cited 12×
• Bechtel Power Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-11-10· cited 12×
• Finnegan v. State
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1980-09-08· cited 11×
• MacEy v. James
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1981-02-03· cited 9×
• Condosta v. Grussing
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1984-06-08· cited 5×
• Ryan v. OLD FOX CHEMICAL CO. INC.
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1981-02-03· cited 3×
• TLOC Senior Living, LLC v. Albert R. (Alpine) Bingham III
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2016-04-08· cited 2×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Johnson v. Hoisington
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1976-11-10· cited 8×
• Burleson v. Caledonia Sand & Gravel Co.
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1969-06-03· cited 8×
• In Re Will of Montgomery
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1960-01-15· cited 3×