 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Behrens v. S.P. Constr. Co., No. 2005-062,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, May 17, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sales contract was unenforceable; minds of buyers and seller did meet on an essential contract term, that of financing. Buyers thought that company had to loan them up to $200,000, but company thought that they had to accept what company could provide, up to $200,000. Term was essential but ambiguous, and reasonable persons could differ about it.
|
|||||
| In re Guardianship of Kapitula, No. 2005-005,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, May 17, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probate court followed § 464-A:9 where hearing was held, at which probate court inquired into nature and extent of patient's functional limitations and ascertained patient's capacity to care for himself, and probate court made findings set forth in § 464-A:9(III)(a)-(d), which were based upon evidence supporting them beyond reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| Simpson Dev. Corp. v. City of Lebanon, No. 2005-207,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, May 17, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City's planning board was not barred from voiding conditional approval of amendment to developer's cluster subdivision plan; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 676:4(I)(i) authorized board to grant conditional approval, and developer's failure to satisfy condition of getting planning office's approval prevented conditional approval from becoming final.
|
|||||
| Barclay Square Condo. Owners' Ass'n v. Grenier, No. 2004-871,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, May 18, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A new condominium association rule effectively precluding one owner from parking 25 cars on common area was valid, not discriminatory; rule treated all owners equally as to parking, and it sufficiently related to all owners' health, happiness, and enjoyment. That it disparately affected the one owner was due only to his greater need for parking.
|
|||||
| Gonya v. Comm'r, N.H. Ins. Dep't, No. 2005-170,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, May 18, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402-C:40(I) did not impose unconstitutional conditions in violation of N.H. Const. pt. I, art. 14. Requiring party with a claim against insured whose insurer was in liquidation to release insured from some liability before filing claim was germane to statute's objectives and burden on claimant's rights was not unreasonable.
|
|||||
| Weare Land Use Ass'n v. Town of Weare, No. 2004-849,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, May 18, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a local interim growth management ordinance was enacted pursuant to N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 674:23(I) and in accordance with the decision in Conway, it was valid, and not ultra vires.
|
|||||
| Appeal of Town of Nottingham (N.H. Dep't of Envtl. Servs.), No. 2004-601,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, May 19, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State Department of Environmental Services properly issued a large groundwater withdrawal permit under the Groundwater Protection Act. The withdrawal was not subject to N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 481:1 and 482-A:3; granting the permit was not a taking of a protected property interest; and the description of need met N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 485-C:4.
|
|||||
| K & B Rock Crushing, LLC v. Town of Auburn, No. 2005-211,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, May 19, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court lacked jurisdiction to hear petitioners' appeal of a town planning board's decision regarding an excavation permit because they did not follow the appeal procedure required by N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 155-E:9 and as a result, the superior court's decision to deny the town's motion to dismiss was error.
|
|||||
| Belanger v. MMG Ins. Co., No. 2005-680,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, May 26, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since an injured person spent the majority of nights at her mother's house, and the facts showed she no longer intended to dwell at her old apartment, on the date of the accident her mother's home was her principal place of abode for purposes of whether she was a "family member" on her mother's insurance policy.
|
|||||
| City of Rochester v. Corpening, No. 2005-389,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, May 26, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clause "shall be subject to" in N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 676:17, I(b) granted the trial court the authority to impose the statutory penalties set forth in N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 676:17, I(b) rather than the obligation to impose such penalties. Thus, the city's argument that imposition of a statutory penalty was mandatory was rejected.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
