Fiske v. Perry
Annotate this CaseFiske v. Perry (2007-044) 2007 VT 58 [Filed 08-Jun-2007] ENTRY ORDER 2007 VT 58 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2007-044 JUNE TERM, 2007 Dana Fiske } APPEALED FROM: } v. } Windham Superior Court } David A. Perry, DMD } DOCKET NO. 159-4-05 Wmcv In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter: Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal as untimely filed. The judgment in this case was issued on January 5, 2007, such that the notice of appeal would be due February 4, 2007. See V.R.A.P. 4 (providing thirty days from date of judgment to file notice of appeal). Because this date fell on a Sunday, the notice of appeal was required to be filed by Monday, February 5, 2007. See V.R.A.P. 26 (providing that computation of time is governed by Rule of Civil Procedure 6); V.R.C.P. 6 (providing that, if end of time period falls on a Sunday, filing is due the following business day). Appellant did not file her notice of appeal until February 6, 2007. (FN1) Although appellant had faxed a copy of the notice of appeal on February 5, 2007, Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 25(a) does not provide for fax filing of a notice of appeal. Other than personal delivery, Rule 25(a) provides only for filing "by mail addressed to the clerk." Accordingly, the appeal is untimely and is dismissed. FOR THE COURT: _______________________________________ Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice _______________________________________ John A. Dooley, Associate Justice _______________________________________ Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice _____________________________________ Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice _______________________________________ Brian L. Burgess, Associate Justice ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Footnotes FN1. Appellant filed her notice of appeal with this Court, and while an appellant is required to file the notice of appeal with the trial court, if a notice of appeal is mistakenly filed with this Court, it is deemed filed on that date. See V.R.A.P. 4.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.