Mary and Earl, like many separated lovers, argued about ownership of the property they had acquired while together. Who owned the horse? Earl invited Mary over dinner, to see the horse, and perhaps resolve the dispute. Good intentions gave way to bad feelings. An argument ensued. Mary grabbed Earl's dog and ran to her car with it. Earl ran to Mary's car, pulled her hair and elbowed her in the neck in the process of retrieving his dog. Mary obtained a Relief From Abuse Order from the Family Court against Earl. He argued that she caused the problem, and anyhow he "had the right to retake his property by using reasonable force."

The argument didn't end there. It wound up in the Supreme Court. In a 3 to 2 decision Justices Johnson, Reiber and Dooley, sided with Mary. They upheld the abuse order. Justices Burgess and Skoglund defended Earl. The accused the majority justices of being bleating sheep who came to an absurd result.

Justice Johnson, writing for the majority decided the Relief from Abuse law was enacted to protect people from harm, not to impose penalties on abusers. It was designed to overrule old common law principles that allowed a husband to use physical force "to the extent necessary to command a wife's obedience and chastise her for 'misbehavior'". The law, they wrote, forbids use of force in domestic relationships and grants protection rather than punishment.

Justice Burgess was incensed that a disgruntled lover could come into your home, grab your property, and run off with it, and you had no right to use reasonable force to keep it. It is punishment to be labeled an "abuser," especially when Mary started the fight. The common law, he argued, has long permitted a person to use reasonable force to retain their property. That principle should have defeated the abuse order in a case which had nothing to do with the usual domestic violence situation.

Apart from making the reader wonder whether the justices enjoy an occasional dinner together, the opinion is a cameo example of how the law is what the judges say it is. Can a law enacted to abolish "male privilege" established only by superior physical strength be used to interfere with rights to property going back to Blackstone's time? One of my favorite professors in law school taught: "If you want to predict a case outcome, don't read law, read biography." Mary Raynes v. Earl Rogers 2008 VT 52.