In Re Ross

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that applicant had no vested right in town plan in existence at time it filed incomplete application for Act 250 permit
• holding that Smith vesting rule requires filing of complete application addressing all relevant criteria
• noting that Smith should not be construed “as an open-ended right to ‘freeze’ the applicable regulatory requirements by proposing a development with inadequate specificity”
• noting that failure to “supply sufficient information to enable the [administrative body] to render a decision” elevates form over substance
• indicating that applicants should be inhibited from “open-ended right[s] to ‘freeze’ 1 The purpose of this rule is to ensures “the orderly governance of development and . . . reasonable reliance on the process.” In re Taft Corners Assocs., Inc., 160 Vt. 583, 593 (1993
• affirming environmental court's determination that developer's permit application under Act 250 was incomplete for purposes of establishing vested rights in then-existing law because it sought review under only two of ten Act 250 criteria

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re Taft Corners Associates, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1993-04-30· cited 45×
• In re Vermont National Bank
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1991-08-23· cited 41×
• In Re Molgano
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1994-11-10· cited 37×
• In Re Appeal of Taft Corners Associates, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2000-08-11· cited 35×
• In Re Jolley Associates
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2006-12-15· cited 27×
• In Re Keystone Development Corp.
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2009-01-22· cited 23×
• In re B&M Realty, LLC
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2016-10-21· cited 20×
• In Re Times and Seasons, LLC
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2011-07-08· cited 19×
• In re Appeal of Jolley Associates
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2006-12-15· cited 17×
• In re Diverging Diamond Interchange SW Permit, Diverging Diamond Interchange A250 (R.L. Vallee, Inc. and Timberlake Associates, LLP, Appellants)
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2019-08-30· cited 14×
• Petition of Department of Public Service
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1991-06-28· cited 8×
• In re Petition of LK Holdings, LLC
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2018-10-12· cited 4×
• Bibby 5-Lot Final Plat subdivision
  Vermont Superior Court· 2012-03-02
• Lake Champlain Bluegrass Festival JO
  Vermont Superior Court· 2012-01-03
• Champlain Valley Meats, Inc. Act 250 Application
  Vermont Superior Court· 2011-11-07
• Gizmo Realty/VKR Assoc., LLC Act 250 Permit
  Vermont Superior Court· 2008-04-30
• Eastview at Middlebury, Inc. Act 250 Permit 9A0314
  Vermont Superior Court· 2008-02-15
• Duval CU Denial - Decision on Motion (Summary Judgment)
  Vermont Superior Court· 2020-06-30
• Diverging Diamond Interchange SW Permit
  Vermont Superior Court· 2017-10-11
• Hinesburg Hannaford SP Application - Decision on Motion
  Vermont Superior Court· 2019-03-08

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• In Re Agency of Administration, Etc.
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1982-03-25· cited 77×
• Smith v. Winhall Planning Commission
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1981-09-01· cited 64×
• Vermont Brick & Block, Inc. v. Village of Essex Junction
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1977-10-31· cited 32×
• In Re McCormick Management Co., Inc.
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1988-02-12· cited 23×
• Application of Preseault
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1974-06-04· cited 13×