THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. STANLEY COLLA & a. TOWN OF HANOVER. Submitted: November 16, 2005 Opinion Issued: January 27, 2006
|
|
- Monica Copeland
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Noble Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by at the following address: Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: Grafton No THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE STANLEY COLLA & a. v. TOWN OF HANOVER Submitted: November 16, 2005 Opinion Issued: January 27, 2006 plaintiffs. Clauson & Atwood, of Hanover (K. William Clauson on the brief), for the Mitchell & Bates, P.A., of Laconia (Walter L. Mitchell and Laura A. Spector on the brief), for the defendant. DUGGAN, J. The plaintiffs, Stanley and Judith Colla, appeal the order of the Superior Court (Houran, J.) dismissing their appeal of a decision by the Town of Hanover Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA). We reverse and remand. The record supports the following facts. The plaintiffs applied to the ZBA for three variances to build additions to their existing residence. The ZBA granted two and denied one of the variance requests. The denied request was for an area variance to the side setback requirements so that the plaintiffs could build a screened deck on the north side of their home. The ZBA denied this request on the ground that there were feasible alternatives for achieving
2 the desired benefit without a Variance including an unroofed deck..., or a porch located in the front without substantial hardship. The plaintiffs timely moved for reconsideration of the ZBA s denial. In their motion, the plaintiffs stated that they had applied for a screened deck for their home[,] which required a variance because of zoning setback requirements. They set forth the reason that the ZBA had provided for denying the variance, i.e., that there were feasible alternatives. Additionally, they stated that they requested rehearing on the following grounds: (1) [t]he decision is unreasonable ; (2) [t]he decision denies their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws ; (3) [t]he decision is contrary to Boccia v. City of Portsmouth[, 151 N.H. 85 (2004)] ; and (4) [t]he decision is contrary to the ordinance. The ZBA denied the plaintiffs motion, and the plaintiffs appealed to the superior court. In their appeal, the plaintiffs identified the ZBA decisions appealed (the denial of the variance request and subsequent denial of their motion for reconsideration), and stated that these were illegal and unreasonable for the reasons set forth in their attached motion for reconsideration to the ZBA. In answering the appeal, the defendant, Town of Hanover, averred, in part, that the ZBA denied the variance because feasible alternatives existed for achieving the desired benefit of the variance, including constructing an unroofed deck or locating the proposed porch at the front of the house. Thus, the defendant asserted, the ZBA had found that there was no unnecessary hardship under Boccia, 151 N.H. at The defendant later moved to dismiss the appeal on two grounds: (1) the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration to the ZBA failed to comply with RSA 677:3 (1996) because it was so broad and non-specific that it was impossible for the [ZBA] to understand what its errors may have been and address those errors ; and (2) the plaintiffs appeal to the superior court failed to comply with RSA 677:4 (Supp. 2005) because it merely incorporated, by reference, the insufficient motion for reconsideration. The trial court agreed with the defendant on both grounds and dismissed the appeal. Our review in zoning cases is limited. Harrington v. Town of Warner, 152 N.H. 74, 77 (2005). We will uphold the trial court s decision on appeal unless it is not supported by the evidence or is legally erroneous. Id. We review the superior court s interpretation of applicable statutes de novo. McDonald v. Town of Effingham Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 152 N.H. 171, 174 (2005). The plaintiffs first argue that the trial court erred when it ruled that their motion for rehearing did not satisfy RSA 677:3. We are the final arbiter of the 2
3 intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole. Pelletier v. City of Manchester, 150 N.H. 687, 688 (2004). In interpreting a statute, we first look to the language of the statute itself, and, if possible, construe that language according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. Where the language of a statute is clear on its face, its meaning is not subject to modification. Id. Unless we find that the statutory language is ambiguous, we need not look to legislative intent. Id. The rehearing process is geared to the proposition that the board of adjustment shall have a first opportunity to correct any action it has taken,... before an appeal to the court is filed. Fisher v. Town of Boscawen, 121 N.H. 438, 440 (1981) (quotation omitted). Toward this end, RSA 677:3 provides, in pertinent part, that a motion for rehearing to a zoning board, shall set forth fully every ground upon which it is claimed that the decision or order complained of is unlawful or unreasonable. RSA 677:3, I. It further provides that a party may not appeal a zoning board decision: unless the appellant shall have made application for rehearing... and, when such application shall have been made, no ground not set forth in the application shall be urged, relied on, or given any consideration by a court unless the court for good cause shown shall allow the appellant to specify additional grounds. Id. Thus, to comply with this statute, a motion for rehearing to a zoning board must set forth fully every ground on which the party argues that the decision was unlawful or unreasonable. Id. Our prior decisions interpreting either RSA 677:3 or its predecessor, RSA 31:75 (1970) (repealed), give some guidance regarding the meaning of the requirement that a party set forth fully every ground on which rehearing or reconsideration is sought. In DiPietro v. Nashua, 109 N.H. 174, 176 (1968), for instance, we interpreted the predecessor to RSA 677:3, which required that a motion for rehearing to a zoning board set forth every ground upon which it was claimed that the zoning board s decision was unreasonable or unlawful. RSA 31:75. The plaintiffs sought a rehearing by motion which specified no reasons therefor. DiPietro, 109 N.H. at 175 (emphasis added). They argued that they were unable to specify the grounds for their motion because the minutes of the zoning board hearing were unavailable when they filed their motion. See id. at We held that the temporary unavailability of these minutes did not relieve the plaintiffs of their obligation to specify the grounds for their motion. Id. at 176. We stated that, even without the minutes, the plaintiffs could have stated their grounds at least in general terms. Id. In Town of Plaistow Board of Selectmen v. Town of Plaistow Zoning Board of Adjustment, 146 N.H. 263 (2001), we distinguished DiPietro. There, the 3
4 board of selectmen for the Town of Plaistow requested a rehearing of the decision by the zoning board to grant a variance to the intervenor. Town of Plaistow Bd. of Selectmen, 146 N.H. at 264. The request stated that it was based upon concerns outlined in an attached planning board memorandum. Id. [U]nlike the plaintiffs in [DiPietro], who failed to specify any reasons for a requested rehearing, the plaintiff referenced and attached the planning board s memorandum, which listed three specific grounds for rehearing. Id. at 266. Specifically, the memorandum had asserted that the variance: may be in conflict with RSA 674:33b; so that the spirit of the ordinance can be more fully understood and discussed; and that the buildings on a particular property cannot (or should not) be a hardship. Id. (quotations omitted). We held that incorporation of the planning board s memorandum satisfied RSA 677:3. Id. Here, the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration to the ZBA stated that the ZBA s denial of their variance request on the ground that there were feasible alternatives to the screened deck they sought to build was unreasonable, denied their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of laws, was contrary to Boccia and was contrary to the ordinance. While the motion at issue in Plaistow Board of Selectmen identified grounds by incorporating another memorandum by reference, the plaintiffs motion directly listed the grounds upon which it was based. These grounds were at least as specific as those set forth in the memorandum appended to the motion at issue in Plaistow Board of Selectmen. If nothing else, the plaintiffs motion put the ZBA on notice that the plaintiffs believed that the ZBA had misinterpreted Boccia when it found that there were feasible alternatives to the screened deck they sought to build. This motion satisfied the spirit and letter of RSA 677:3. The defendant contends that we must affirm the trial court, nonetheless, because the court dismissed the plaintiffs appeal on the alternative ground that it did not comply with RSA 677:4. RSA 677:4, which governs appeals of zoning board decisions to the superior court, requires such appeals to specify the grounds upon which the [zoning board] decision or order is claimed to be illegal or unreasonable. RSA 677:4. As discussed above, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs appeal because it failed to comply with both RSA 677:3 and RSA 677:4. The plaintiffs notice of appeal did not challenge the trial court s dismissal for failure to comply with RSA 677:4. The only issue raised in the notice of appeal is whether the trial court correctly ruled that their motion for rehearing to the ZBA deprived the ZBA of the opportunity to understand the specific grounds upon which [they] believed the decision to be unlawful or unreasonable. (Quotation omitted.) Additionally, the plaintiffs brief does not discuss whether the trial court erroneously ruled that their appeal failed to comply with RSA 677:4. 4
5 Ordinarily, when an appellant has failed to raise an issue in a notice of appeal, we deem the issue waived. See Wilder v. City of Keene, 131 N.H. 599, 605 (1989). We also deem an issue waived when it is raised in a notice of appeal, but is not briefed. In re Estate of King, 149 N.H. 226, 230 (2003). These principles, however, do not apply here. Although the defendant contends that the plaintiffs failure to comply with RSA 677:4 constitutes an alternative, separate and independent ground for dismissing the plaintiffs appeal, the trial court s analysis of this issue was wholly dependent upon its analysis of whether the plaintiffs complied with RSA 677:3. The only reason the trial court gave for finding that the plaintiffs violated RSA 677:4 is that their motion for reconsideration, which they incorporated by reference, violated RSA 677:3. The court ruled that incorporating a motion for reconsideration to the ZBA is an acceptable means of informing the trial court in an RSA 677:4 appeal of the specific grounds upon which the decision is alleged to be unreasonable or illegal. Nonetheless, it ruled that incorporating the motion at issue did not suffice because the motion failed to specify in any way how [the ZBA decision] is alleged to be unreasonable. Under the circumstances of this appeal, the issue of whether the plaintiffs complied with RSA 677:4 is indistinguishable from the issue of whether they met the requirements of RSA 677:3 because, on these facts, in order to comply with 677:4, they had to meet the requirements of 677:3. Thus, the question of whether the trial court erroneously dismissed the plaintiffs appeal for failure to comply with RSA 677:4 fairly comprises a subsidiary question to the ultimate issue of whether they met the requirements of RSA 677:3. See Sup. Ct. R. 16(b)(3). In light of our holding that the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration to the ZBA satisfied RSA 677:3, and given that the trial court found that the plaintiffs appeal failed to satisfy RSA 677:4 only because it reached the opposite conclusion, we hold that the plaintiffs appeal complies with RSA 677:4. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court s dismissal of the plaintiffs appeal, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. BRODERICK, C.J., and DALIANIS and GALWAY, JJ., concurred. 5
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 74 COX STREET, LLC & a. CITY OF NASHUA & a. Argued: June 7, 2007 Opinion Issued: September 21, 2007
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. K & B ROCK CRUSHING, LLC & a. TOWN OF AUBURN. Submitted: March 16, 2006 Opinion Issued: May 19, 2006
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
PETITION OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (State v. Victor Laporte) Argued: April 10, 2008 Opinion Issued: May 2, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. KEN GRANT & a. TOWN OF BARRINGTON. Argued: January 31, 2008 Opinion Issued: March 13, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MERRIAM FARM, INC. TOWN OF SURRY. Argued: June 14, 2012 Opinion Issued: July 18, 2012
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SHANNON GALLAGHER THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TIMOTHY A. HUGHES
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. JOSEPH THOMAS & a. TOWN OF HOOKSETT. Argued: March 8, 2006 Opinion Issued: July 20, 2006
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE LAKE FOREST R.V. RESORT, INC. TOWN OF WAKEFIELD & a. Argued: February 10, 2016 Opinion Issued: August 23, 2016
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MALACHY GLEN ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN OF CHICHESTER. Argued: January 5, 2007 Opinion Issued: March 20, 2007
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PATRICK CANTWELL J & R PROPERTIES UNLIMITED, INC. Argued: April 3, 2007 Opinion Issued: May 30, 2007
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE WALTER W. FISCHER, TRUSTEE OF WALTER W. FISCHER 1993 TRUST NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE BUILDING CODE REVIEW BOARD
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NINE A, LLC TOWN OF CHESTERFIELD. Argued: April 30, 2008 Opinion Issued: June 3, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF GARRISON PLACE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST (New Hampshire Wetlands Council)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE MATTER OF ADAM MUCHMORE AND AMY JAYCOX. Argued: November 4, 2009 Opinion Issued: December 4, 2009
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HANNAFORD BROTHERS COMPANY. TOWN OF BEDFORD & a. Argued: January 10, 2013 Opinion Issued: April 25, 2013
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ATV WATCH NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF BEVERLY DESMARAIS (New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. MELVIN SEVERANCE, III & a. TOWN OF EPSOM. Argued: October 11, 2006 Opinion Issued: May 1, 2007
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. SUZANNE ORR & a. DAVID A. GOODWIN & a. Argued: June 26, 2008 Opinion Issued: July 15, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE WAYNE H. KASSOTIS TOWN OF FITZWILLIAM. Argued: April 16, 2014 Opinion Issued: August 28, 2014
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
BIRCH BROADCASTING, INC. & a. CAPITOL BROADCASTING CORPORATION, INC. & a. Argued: October 14, 2010 Opinion Issued: November 24, 2010
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE KIMBERLY THIEL. Argued: April 22, 2010 Opinion Issued: June 30, 2010
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RIC PAUL FRANKLIN C. SHERBURNE. Argued: May 17, 2006 Opinion Issued: July 21, 2006
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. PAUL MCNAMARA & a. BARRY R. HERSH & a. Argued: January 31, 2008 Opinion Issued: April 4, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF THOMAS PHILLIPS (New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
DANA CHATMAN. JAMES BRADY & a. Argued: June 9, 2011 Opinion Issued: September 15, 2011
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CATHY BURKE. Submitted: February 22, 2006 Opinion Issued: April 12, 2006
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
JEFFREY M. GRAY. TERI E. KELLY & a. Submitted: September 8, 2010 Opinion Issued: November 24, 2010
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DANIEL C. THOMPSON. Argued: November 8, 2012 Opinion Issued: December 21, 2012
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ROBERT GUNDERSON COMMISSIONER, NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF ANNELIE MULLEN (New Hampshire Department of Employment Security)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HARRY A. SLEEPER. THE HOBAN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP & a. Argued: June 26, 2008 Opinion Issued: July 25, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. CLINTON A. JOHNSON & a. TOWN OF WOLFEBORO PLANNING BOARD & a.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDITH MATTHEWS. Argued: May 22, 2008 Opinion Issued: June 27, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JOHN CRIE. Submitted: July 21, 2006 Opinion Issued: November 28, 2006
Modified 1/11/07 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter,
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE JAMES N. Submitted: September 16, 2008 Opinion Issued: October 8, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DAN GARAND. TOWN OF EXETER & a. Argued: March 17, 2009 Opinion Issued: July 31, 2009
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE TREVOR G. Argued: January 16, 2014 Opinion Issued: February 7, 2014
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MONICA ANDERSON ESTATE OF MARY D. WOOD. Argued: September 13, 2018 Opinion Issued: November 28, 2018
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF DONALD W. MURDOCK (New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RONALD MCKEOWN. Argued: April 16, 2009 Opinion Issued: December 4, 2009
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CHRISTOPHER DOYLE. Argued: September 13, 2007 Opinion Issued: October 17, 2007
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE HILL-GRANT LIVING TRUST KEARSARGE LIGHTING PRECINCT
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
JOEL M. HARRINGTON. METROPOLIS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. & a. Submitted: June 9, 2011 Opinion Issued: September 22, 2011
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RICHARD A. MOTTOLO
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF ANDREW J. KAPLAN (New Hampshire Department of Employment Security)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HOLLOWAY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP STEVEN GIACALONE. Argued: November 17, 2016 Opinion Issued: February 15, 2017
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. BEDFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT & a. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE & a. Argued: April 17, 2018 Opinion Issued: August 17, 2018
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TOWN OF CARROLL WILLIAM RINES. Argued: June 13, 2012 Resubmitted: December 7, 2012 Opinion Issued: January 30, 2013
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ROLAND MACMILLAN. Argued: January 19, Opinion Issued: April 1, 2005
Page 1 of 5 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter,
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE SEARCH WARRANT FOR RECORDS FROM AT&T. Argued: January 17, 2017 Opinion Issued: June 9, 2017
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AMY BARNET. WARDEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN & a.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE (New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DANIEL C. THOMPSON. Submitted: October 16, 2013 Opinion Issued: December 24, 2013
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. PETITION OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (State v. James Milner)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. SCOTT L. BACH & a. NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY. Argued: February 10, 2016 Opinion Issued: June 2, 2016
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
Argued: May 12, 2011 Opinion Issued: December 8, 2011
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HEIDI BROUILLETTE. Argued: March 5, 2014 Opinion Issued: July 11, 2014
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ANTHONY BALLIRO. Argued: September 16, 2008 Opinion Issued: October 30, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. TOWN OF CANAAN & a. SECRETARY OF STATE. Argued: October 8, 2008 Opinion Issued: October 29, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE KARL MATEY. Argued: January 11, 2006 Opinion Issued: February 15, 2006
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RICHARD PAUL. Argued: June 18, 2014 Opinion Issued: October 24, 2014
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. CHRISTOPHER BENNETT & a. TOWN OF HAMPSTEAD TOWN OF HAMPSTEAD. CHRISTOPHER BENNETT & a.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. CONTINENTAL PAVING, INC. & a. TOWN OF LITCHFIELD. Argued: February 18, 2009 Opinion Issued: April 9, 2009
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. LEIGH MAE FRIEDLINE & a. EUGENE ROE. Argued: October 16, 2013 Opinion Issued: May 16, 2014
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CLINT J. ST. ONGE DAVID R. MACDONALD. Argued: January 5, 2007 Opinion Issued: January 26, 2007
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MYLA RANDALL NAHLA ABOUNAJA. Argued: November 27, 2012 Opinion Issued: January 11, 2013
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MATTHEW BLUNT. Argued: January 16, 2013 Opinion Issued: March 13, 2013
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD R. LEMIEUX AND JOANNE LEMIEUX. Argued: May 21, 2008 Opinion Issued: June 13, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ROBERT BREEST. Argued: October 15, 2014 Opinion Issued: December 19, 2014
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
Argued: May 5, 2011 Opinion Issued: June 30, 2011
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2016-0054, Kulick's, Inc. v. Town of Winchester, the court on September 16, 2016, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and record
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION DARREN VICTORIA. Argued: February 22, 2006 Opinion Issued: June 14, 2006
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MICHAEL L. HAMMELL. Argued: January 11, 2007 Opinion Issued: March 6, 2007
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TOWN OF LONDONDERRY. MESITI DEVELOPMENT, INC. & a. Argued: May 7, 2015 Opinion Issued: December 4, 2015
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BOARD OF TRUSTEES & a. MARCO DORFSMAN & a.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ERNEST P. PEPIN. Argued: March 21, 2007 Opinion Issued: May 1, 2007
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF TRACY WATERMAN (New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. NELSON NJOGU & a. Argued: November 8, 2007 Opinion Issued: December 14, 2007
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SARA REALTY, LLC COUNTRY POND FISH AND GAME CLUB, INC. Argued: February 18, 2009 Opinion Issued: April 9, 2009
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. DENNIS TULLEY & a. WILLIAM SHELDON & a. Submitted: August 13, 2009 Opinion Issued: September 18, 2009
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY. JAMES KEVLIK & a. Argued: February 17, 2011 Opinion Issued: April 28, 2011
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. K.L.N. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. & a. TOWN OF PELHAM. Argued: March 5, 2014 Opinion Issued: December 10, 2014
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. Argued: October 15, 2014 Opinion Issued: April 30, 2015
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DALE ROBINSON NEW HAMPSHIRE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION. Argued: September 11, 2008 Opinion Issued: October 10, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. PETITION OF STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (State of New Hampshire v. Michael Lewandowski)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. PETITION OF MICHAEL POULICAKOS (New Hampshire Retirement System)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DENNIS PRATTE. Argued: October 15, 2008 Opinion Issued: November 6, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CINTIA TOSTA RUSSELL BULLIS, JR. Submitted: January 31, 2008 Opinion Issued: February 26, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ANTHONY BARNABY THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DAVID CAPLIN
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
GOLF COURSE INVESTORS OF NH, LLC. TOWN OF JAFFREY & a. Argued: November 10, 2010 Opinion Issued: April 12, 2011
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE THERESA HOULAHAN TRUST. Argued: January 9, 2014 Opinion Issued: August 22, 2014
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
APPEAL OF CAMPAIGN FOR RATEPAYERS RIGHTS & a (New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee) Argued: March 10, 2011 Opinion Issued: July 21, 2011
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. HELEN MARTIN & a. PAT S PEAK, INC. Argued: February 18, 2009 Opinion Issued: May 21, 2009
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ULYSSES MCMILLAN. Argued: February 12, 2009 Opinion Issued: May 29, 2009
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE JUVENILE Argued: October 3, 2006 Opinion Issued: January 26, 2007
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JOSHUA A. BOUTIN. Argued: October 21, 2010 Opinion Issued: November 24, 2010
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BAILEY P. SERPA. Argued: January 18, 2018 Opinion Issued: May 24, 2018
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JEFFREY MAXFIELD. Argued: February 19, 2015 Opinion Issued: May 19, 2015
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme