The website www.inversecondemnation.com provides valuable legal insights on the important legal arguments raised in the Petition to the Supreme Court.

Landowner Property Rights' Stance:

A skillfully prepared Petition For A Writ of Certiorari combined with well argued Amici Curiae Brief In Support of Petitioner.

Municipal Defendants' Opposing Stance:

Municipal Defendants waived the right to respond; their legal position was presented in prior oral arguments (available directly from the Second Circuit Court of Federal Appeals oral argument archive of December 1, 2022 on case 22-956) and prior response brief.

For anyone not familiar with the intricacies of Vermont law it is critical to note, ALL prior Vermont Supreme Court proceedings in which Mr. Demarest had been a party or co-party "there was no statutory authority providing for review of the reclassification and therefore the only jurisdiction for the appeal was pursuant to Rule 75 in the nature of certiorari" (¶5 of Ketchum stare decis) and the statutory construction of Ketchum precedent also gave Town of Underhill officials unbridled discretion in prior non-chronological administrative proceedings involving the first-filed Notice of Road Insufficiency since, "There is no legal requirement that the road be brought back to its condition in 2001 before the court considers the issue of reclassification. This was the plan previously, but with the Ketchum decision in hand, it becomes clear that the only evidence to be considered by the court is the record of the selectboard decision making..." (quoted from exhibit on A-200 of the Appendix to 2nd Circuit Court Appeal docket 22-956)

Given the constraints of Rule 10, the United States Supreme Court declined to review the Road-To-Trail Takings issues on June 20, 2023. 

The UnderhillVT.com homepage has a brief synopsis and video of Mr. Demarest's personal vantage point in the 2010 "Reclassification" and a recording of Underhill town officials further planning to harm the use and enjoyment of Mr. Demarest's private property and abutting TH-26 frontage the town has abandoned in all ways other than encouraging the public to the "Crane Brook Area."   

Be warned: Any Vermont real estate abutting current or former town highways presently may have once clearly established rights rescinded without due process of law or just compensation based solely upon the discretion of your town's officials if they follow the Kafkaesque Road-To-Trails Model a clique of Underhill Town officials has pioneered with ALL prior Vermont state supreme court proceedings being limited to a completely Deferential Standard Of Review of the Municipal Defendant's carefully crafted own record. 

Federal Rails-To-Trails Takings jurisprudence should be applied to Road-To-Trail Takings by local municipalities and it should be noted the entirely opposite results of Demarest's plight despite striking similarities to the strategic municipal maneuvering of Sherman v. Town of Chester, 752 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2014) given both towns, "used extreme delay to effect a taking. It [was] perverse to allow the Town to use that same delay to escape liability..."