Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Affiliations
District Court, D. Vermont — appointed by Richard Nixon
Party: Republican →A.B., Dartmouth CollegeLL.B., Albany Law SchoolBA, Dartmouth CollegeJD, Albany Law School
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
PurposivismTextualism
In Dubuque the court examined the Food Stamp Act text alongside legislative history to uphold the agency's definition of head of household as consistent with congressional intent. Dubuque v. Yeutter ↗
Willing to revisit precedentStrong stare decisis
In Barnett the court adhered to the Supreme Court's Heckler v. Day remand and Second Circuit guidance when crafting equitable relief for statutory violations in Social Security processing. Barnett v. Bowen ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
In Derby the court invalidated a municipal loitering ordinance as unconstitutionally vague, and in Wheeler it required federal and state agencies to apply the prior Vermont disability standards rather than current federal criteria. Derby v. Town of Hartford ↗ Wheeler v. Schweiker ↗
Judicial activismJudicial restraint
In Mt. Everest the court enforced Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 timing requirements to deny a jury trial on a counterclaim after the plaintiff failed to make a timely demand. Mt. Everest Ski Shops, Inc. v. S… ↗
The case involved the Graham family suing Canadian National Railway for personal injuries, property damage, and related claims after herbicides were applied along the railroad's right-of-way adjacent to their Vermont home, with the suit proceeding on negligence and nuisance theories. Jurisdiction was based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act due to the defendant's status as a Canadian Crown corporation operating in the U.S. The court, after a bench trial, issued detailed findings of fact regarding the property's location, the history of herbicide applications from the 1960s through 1984 using chemicals such as diuron, hexazinone, and bromacil, the methods of spraying, state permits, well water contamination, and reported symptoms in family members and livestock. Core reasoning centered on evidence from permits, employee testimony, chemical analysis, and health advisories to establish the timing, extent, and effects of the applications while applying Vermont statutes of limitations to the claims.
The case involved a challenge by Vermont food stamp recipients to a federal regulation implementing the Food Stamp Act's provision disqualifying households for 90 days if the head of household voluntarily quits a job without good cause. Plaintiffs argued that defining 'head of the household' as the 'principal wage earner' exceeded the statute's meaning and improperly penalized their households when other members quit jobs. The court analyzed the Act's text and legislative history, which referenced the 'primary wage earner,' and concluded the regulation was consistent with congressional intent. It granted summary judgment to the government defendants after addressing standing issues for compensatory relief.
The case involved a commercial dispute in which Mt. Everest Ski Shops sued Ski Barn and Nordica USA over an alleged conspiracy and breach of dealer agreements, after which Nordica filed a counterclaim seeking attorney’s fees under a contractual indemnity provision. The plaintiff had filed a jury demand limited to “each and every count of the complaint” but did not file a reply or separate demand addressing the counterclaim within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38. The court held that the plaintiff therefore waived its right to a jury trial on the remaining issue of which fees were attributable to defending the contract claim. The core reasoning was that Rule 38(b) and (d) require a timely written demand specifying the issues to be tried by jury, the plaintiff’s demand was expressly confined to the complaint, and the counterclaim presented distinct factual and legal issues arising from the litigation itself rather than the underlying transaction.
The case involves the State of Vermont and the Village of Poultney seeking to recover response costs and compel cleanup of mercury contamination in sewage facilities and private septic systems allegedly caused by Staco, Inc.'s former thermometer manufacturing plant. The plaintiffs brought claims under CERCLA, RCRA, and related state laws against the company, related corporations, and their officers. The court addressed the defendants' motion to dismiss based on a prior state court judgment, ruling that res judicata does not apply because the federal action concerns different violations, time periods, and legal provisions not available in the earlier suit, along with plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability. The core reasoning is that the state and federal actions involve distinct subject matters and causes of action, including post-judgment releases and worker-related contamination.
This case involves consolidated class actions by Vermont applicants for Social Security disability benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, who challenged unreasonable delays in the administrative reconsideration and hearing processes for denied claims. Following remands from the Supreme Court in Heckler v. Day and the Second Circuit, the district court addressed requests for class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief without mandatory deadlines. The court granted partial declaratory relief, confirming that Section 405(b) requires hearings within a reasonable time and that prior delays in the named plaintiffs' cases violated this requirement. It considered plaintiffs' proposals for individualized notices after 90 days, expedited procedures, and quarterly reports, while noting documented improvements in processing times alongside evidence of remaining delays for some claimants. The reasoning centered on established statutory violations and the court's equitable authority to craft remedies consistent with appellate guidance.
This case concerned the disposition of proceeds from the sale of machinery and equipment belonging to the bankrupt debtor Kors, Inc., focusing on the Howard Bank's unperfected security interest in the collateral and its subordination agreement with the Small Business Investment Corporation of Vermont (SBIC). The bankruptcy court avoided the Bank's unperfected lien for the benefit of the estate and permitted the trustee to assert the Bank's rights under the subordination agreement. On appeal, the district court affirmed the avoidance of the unperfected security interest but reversed the portion of the order allowing the bankruptcy estate to enforce the subordination agreement, concluding that the agreement should instead be enforced according to its terms between the parties who created it.