Susan A. McManus
How Judge McManus rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McManus
Susan A. McManus joined the Vermont Superior Court in 2023 and sits in its Civil Division. She previously spent thirteen years as a public defender in southern Vermont and served as president of the Vermont Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. She earned her law degree from Vermont Law School.
Judge McManus's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge McManus's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge McManus decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Kayenta Township Commission's judgment-recognition case, McManus held that the issuing court's procedures need not mirror Vermont's rules to be fundamentally fair.
“our Rules do not set the ‘floor,’ such that procedural rules that do not mirror ours are lacking in essential fairness.”
In Barli v. Wulfman, McManus denied two defendants’ motions based on the medical-malpractice statute of repose. She held that the statutory minority provision delayed the relevant period until the plaintiff’s eighteenth birthday.
“This plainly states that the times imposed by section 521, in the case of a minor, begin upon their eighteenth birthday.”
In Taylor v. Deml, McManus dismissed a Rule 75 challenge to prison medical-care decisions for lack of jurisdiction because those discretionary decisions were outside the rule’s scope of review.
“Review of such discretionary decisions is not permitted under Rule 75.”
Procedural preferences
In Billewicz v. Humphries, McManus granted summary judgment after the plaintiff failed to supply record evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact.
“A party opposing summary judgment may not simply rely on allegations in the pleadings to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Instead, it must come forward with deposition excerpts, affidavits, or other evidence to establish such a dispute.”
In Vermont Country Store v. Packard, McManus denied reconsideration and a request for open-ended accommodations that would have ceded control of the court’s docket to one litigant.
“The Court will not simply cede control over its docket to any litigant in a blanket fashion, such as is sought by Defendant.”
In Fucci's case against Taggart, McManus declined to reopen a default judgment because Taggart's proposed defenses were conclusory and lacked a clear connection to the case's facts.
“Ms. Taggart’s purported ‘meritorious defenses’ are thin legal arguments that are asserted in entirely conclusory terms that are not clearly tethered to the facts of this case.”
Cautions
In Village Square at Pico v. Adams, McManus granted the prevailing association’s fee request in part, awarding less than half the requested amount. She reduced rates and hours after finding the case straightforward and some trial and administrative work excessive or avoidable.
“Fee awards are to be reasonable, reasonable as to billing rates and reasonable as to the number of hours spent in advancing the successful claims.”
In Bovasso v. Mountain Green Condominium Association, McManus dismissed the unit owner’s public-accommodations claim because the complaint alleged neither disability nor discrimination against the owner and gave her no standing to sue over alleged injuries to others.
“As with Count II, Count III does not state a claim under the statute, and the allegations do not support Plaintiff’s standing to bring a claim for injuries to others when she alleges no injury in fact to herself.”
In Billewicz's suit against Humphries, McManus denied leave to amend after finding the proposed complaint would not cure its defects.
“Mr. Billewicz’s proposed amended complaint is certifiably futile.”
In Davis v. Vermont State Colleges, McManus dismissed an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because the alleged workplace incidents, taken together, did not include conduct sufficiently extreme to support the claim.
“Absent at least one incident of behavior that transcends the ignoble and vast realm of unpleasant and often stressful conduct in the workplace, incidents that are in themselves insignificant should not be consolidated to arrive at the conclusion that the overall conduct was outrageous.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Wherefor, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“Mr. Billewicz’s motion to amend is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the State’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted.”
“Mr. Cijka’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV is granted.”
“Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss is granted with regard to the claims for third-party retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It is denied regarding the promissory estoppel claim based on reduction of retirement account contribution and granted with regard to the remaining bases for the promissory estoppel claim.”
“Accordingly, Dr. Wulfman’s motion to dismiss is denied.”
“Porter moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to V.R.C.P. 12(c), based on the statute of repose. For the reasons discussed above, the motion is denied.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Scheduling Order for Trial and for Order Dealing with Other Trial Related Matters is denied.”
“Defendant’s motion for reconsideration and for accommodations, filed January 16, 2026, is hereby DENIED.”
“Ms. Taggart’s motion to set aside judgment is denied; the stay of execution entered on February 26, 2026, is lifted.”
“Defendant’s oral motion for sanctions made in court on November 19, 2025, is hereby GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART.”
“the Court declines Plaintiffs’ request to stay enforcing this order until all the claims in this case have been finally resolved on the merits, including by exhaustion of all appeals.”
“Accordingly, therefore, this action must be, and hereby is, DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the State’s motion to dismiss is granted.”
“Plaintiff’s request for recovery of fees and costs in granted in part and denied in part.”
Draft for Judge McManus with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McManus, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McManus's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace