Content deleted Content added
Daniel Case (talk | contribs) →State v. Kirchoff: make dissent its own subsection |
Daniel Case (talk | contribs) →State v. Kirchoff: +infobox |
||
Line 87:
===''State v. Kirchoff''===
{{Infobox court case
|name = State v. Kirchoff
|court = [[Vermont Supreme Court]]
|date decided = {{start date|1991|01|25|df=us}}
|citations = 156 Vt. 1, 587 [[Atlantic Reporter|A.2d]] 988
|number of judges = 5
|decision by = Morse
|concurring = Springer
|dissenting = Peck
|keywords = {{hlist | search | seizure }}
|italic title = no
}}
A case that had begun before ''Oliver'' provided the [[Vermont Supreme Court]] with its opportunity to consider the open-fields doctrine almost a decade later. In 1982 Robert Kirchoff bought a {{convert|39|acre|ha|adj=on}} parcel in the town of [[Lincoln, Vermont]], posted it and filed a notice to that effect with the town clerk. He allowed some of his neighbors to ride their bicycles on trails that crossed the property, but otherwise did not allow any access.<ref name="People v. Kirchoff">{{cite court |litigants=People v. Kirchoff|vol=587|reporter=[[Atlantic Reporter|A.2d]]|opinion=988|court=[[Vermont Supreme Court|Vt.]]|date=1988|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9401759424447139849|accessdate=October 1, 2019}}</ref>
| |||