Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division addressed a motion by the Natural Resources Board (NRB) to alter or amend a previous merits decision concerning the Zaremba Group's Act 250 permit appeal. The NRB, despite being an interested party, did not participate actively in the trial proceedings. The primary legal issue revolved around the NRB's request under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which permits alteration of judgments under specific conditions such as correcting manifest errors or addressing newly discovered evidence. The court highlighted that such motions are considered extraordinary remedies and should be applied sparingly. The NRB failed to present new evidence, show any change in law, or demonstrate manifest errors or injustices in the initial decision. Furthermore, the court had previously determined that Mr. Cunningham lacked standing under Act 250 Criterion 8 due to the absence of a particularized interest. Emphasizing better procedural communication, the court suggested that the NRB could have filed legal memoranda on motions before decisions were rendered. Consequently, Judge Thomas G. Walsh denied the NRB's motion, maintaining the original judgment.
Legal Issues Addressed
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the NRB's motion to alter or amend the judgment, emphasizing that such motions are extraordinary remedies and should be used sparingly.
Reasoning: The Court emphasized that such motions are extraordinary remedies and should be employed sparingly.
Participation of Interested Parties in Environmental Division Trialssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The NRB, although an interested party, did not actively participate in the trial, which affected its ability to alter or amend the decision.
Reasoning: The NRB, although an interested party, did not actively participate in the trial but had the opportunity to present its arguments.
Standing under Act 250 Criterion 8subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that Mr. Cunningham lacked standing as he did not demonstrate a particularized interest under Act 250 Criterion 8.
Reasoning: The Court previously ruled that Mr. Cunningham lacked standing under Act 250 Criterion 8, as he did not demonstrate a particularized interest.