Case Title: State v. Wesco, Inc.

Citation: 180 Vt. 345, 2006 VT 93, 911 A.2d 281

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-09-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Wesco, Inc. (2005-278); 180 Vt. 345; 911 A.2d 281

2006 VT 93

[Filed 08-Sep-2006]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 2006 VT 93

                                No. 2005-278


  State of Vermont                               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

  Wesco, Inc. and Odessa Corporation             February Term, 2006


  Michael S. Kupersmith, J.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Mark J. Di Stefano and Jeanne
    Elias, Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Robert F. O'Neill and Heather Rider Hammond of Gravel and Shea, Burlington,
    for  Defendants-Appellees.


  PRESENT:   Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and 
             Allen, C.J. (Ret.),  Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  REIBER, C.J.   In this interlocutory appeal, the State of
  Vermont appeals a discovery order of the Chittenden District Court. 
  Appellees Wesco Incorporated and Odessa Corporation, ("Wesco"), owners and
  operators of numerous gas stations in Vermont, seek discovery to support
  their claim of selective prosecution against criminal charges of recklessly
  releasing gasoline into the environment at the Winooski Exxon gas station
  in Winooski, Vermont, which they owned and operated when the alleged
  releases occurred.  After our decision in State v. Simoneau, 2003 VT 83,
  176 Vt. 15,