Searles v. Agency of Transportation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “a court must determine whether the challenged act involves [policy considerations]” (emphasis added)
• observing that “[t]he intersection at issue is just one of many dirt road intersections in Vermont,” and thus the State was not required to prove “that it made a conscious decision, based upon policy considerations, not to place a warning sign at every dirt road intersection in Vermont”
• “To reverse Gaubert’s presumption and require the State to produce evidence that it made a conscious decision, based upon policy considerations, not to place a warning sign at every dirt road intersection in Vermont, would be unduly burdensome.”
• adopting Gaubert for purposes of Vermont law
• interpreting earlier version of MUTCD as discretionary

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).