rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)

Citation: rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Parent Document: rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2025-12-11
Original Source: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19666 ↗

Full Text

893 chars

notice to terminate is defective, the court disagrees. A defective notice may mean that the cause of action fails on
the merits; it does not mean that the court lacks the power to make that determination. See Vermont Hum. Rts.
Comm’n v. Town of St. Johnsbury, 2024 VT 71, ¶ 13 (“Subject-matter jurisdiction ‘refers to a tribunal’s power to
hear a case,’ not to ‘whether the allegations the plaintiff makes entitle him to relief.’” (citation omitted)).
is a limited exception: documents sufficiently referred to and relied upon in the complaint may
properly be considered in a motion to dismiss even if not attached to the complaint. See Kaplan
v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 2009 VT 78, ¶ 10 n.4, 186 Vt. 605; Parada v. Banco Indus. De Venez.,
C.A., 753 F.3d 62, 67–68 (2d Cir. 2014) (decision on whether to exclude extra-record documents
or transition motion to summary judgment is discretionary).

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text