 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Cmty. Res. for Justice, Inc. v. City of Manchester, No. 2006-609,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, January 24, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The intermediate scrutiny test under the New Hampshire Constitution was restated and held to require that the challenged legislation be substantially related to an important governmental objective, with the burden resting upon the government to demonstrate that the challenged legislation met that test.
|
|||||
| In re Juvenile 2005-212, No. 2005-212,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, January 26, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of mother's petition alleging son was child in need of services (CHINS) was vacated because trial court misinterpreted N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-D:18-a(I), as requiring dismissal upon a finding of incompetence; to mandate dismissal upon such a finding would have required supreme court to add words legislature did not see fit to include.
|
|||||
| St. Onge v. MacDonald, No. 2006-317,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, January 26, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly determined injured party and girlfriend were not "closely related" so as to satisfy requirements for bystander recover in NIED action where they had only been dating for five or six months and, although injured party claimed they intended to marry or live together, at the time of her death they had not made either commitment.
|
|||||
| McKenzie v. Town of Eaton Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, No. 2005-778,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, January 31, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Eaton, N.H., Zoning Ordinance art. VI, § 2 worked to reduce nonconforming uses by establishing a time limit on their reconstruction. Reduction and elimination of nonconforming uses was a legitimate purpose of zoning and so the ordinance's purpose of reducing nonconforming uses was a legitimate governmental interest.
|
|||||
| Landry v. Landry, No. 2005-815,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, February 16, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where ex-wife sought attachment of ex-husband's assets to cover unpaid debt, trial court granted him $ 5,000 exemption for tools under RSA 511:2(IX) and he was entitled to additional exemption of up to $ 8,000 under RSA 511:2(XVIII); however, remand was required to determine value of assets and how much of exemption remained available for use.
|
|||||
| Plourde Sand & Gravel Co. v. JGI Eastern, Inc., No. 2005-912,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, February 16, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no special relationship between plaintiff and defendant such that defendant owed plaintiff independent duty in tort to prevent economic loss, as economic loss plaintiff suffered arose solely from disappointed commercial expectations in that plaintiff lost anticipated profits of its contract with subcontractor.
|
|||||
| State v. Looney, No. 2006-348,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, February 16, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the context of a criminal case, a judgment was "rendered" when the sentence was imposed by the trial court. Defendant's motion for a new trial was filed more than three years after the trial court sentenced him. His motion was therefore untimely and the trial court aptly dismissed it under RSA 526:4.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
