 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Albert, No. 2006-139,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, April 18, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a trial court's imputation of income under RSA 458-C:2(IV)(a) (2004) was based on its erroneous reliance on the father's reporting of passive income on his federal income tax returns, the case was remanded for a further evidentiary hearing for a recalculation of the father's child support obligation, including the amount of an arrearage.
|
|||||
| State v. Kepple, No. 2006-393,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, April 18, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel under N.H. Const. art. I, § 15 because trial counsel failed to argue that State disproved surprise element of RSA 632-A:2(I)(i) as victim was surprised as she became aware of defendant's actions during assault, and was startled enough to flee.
|
|||||
| State v. Miller, No. 2005-775,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, April 18, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred when, without exercising its discretion under N.H. R. Evid. 608(b), it made defendant show a victim's abuse allegations against her father were demonstrably false by clear and convincing evidence before he could cross-examine her on them because the trial court could have exercised its discretion to allow the cross-examination.
|
|||||
| State v. Smoke Signals Pipe & Tobacco Shop, LLC, No. 2005-299,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, April 18, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was reversed, although RSA 318-B:1(X-a) was not impermissibly vague under State Constitution as use of "customarily" presented evidentiary question, rather than constitutional validity question. Terms "intended for use" and "customarily intended for use" did not permit person to be found criminally liable based on intentions of another.
|
|||||
| Cecere v. Loon Mt. Rec. Corp., No. 2006-177,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, April 19, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In negligence action against ski area, mother of deceased snowboarder argued that son was not "skier" under RSA 225-A:24(I), immunity provision for ski operators. Court found that RSA 225-A:2(II) focused on those who used ski area, not on means by which they did so. 2005 amendment clarified meaning of statute to include snowboarding.
|
|||||
| Kalil v. Town of Dummer Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, No. 2006-381,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, April 19, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nothing in the plain language of the New Hampshire statutes or in the New Hampshire case law prevented a superior court from remanding a matter to a Zoning Board of Adjustment for clarification based on the pre-existing record. However, the remand was not an opportunity for any party to enlarge the record or to reintroduce new evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Elementis Chem., Inc., No. 2006-297,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, April 19, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court's civil forfeiture assessment fell within the range specified in RSA 147-A:17 and its stated rationale for the assessment was supported by the record. Thus, the court did not commit an unsustainable exercise of discretion when it assessed a civil forfeiture of $ 95,100 against the corporation, and its order was affirmed.
|
|||||
| State v. Ravell, No. 2006-040,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, April 19, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could be punished in one county for five images containing pornographic images of children that he possessed on a CD-ROM and punished in another county for the identical five images he possessed on his computer hard drive without violating double jeopardy.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
