 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Boynton v. Figueroa, No. 2005-652,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, December 21, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in a consumer case against a manufacturer of a modular home was upheld because the trial court did not err in ruling that expert testimony was not required to prove the existence of defects and that, pursuant to N.H. R. Evid. 701, the home buyers could testify themselves as to the defects they observed and remedies they undertook.
|
|||||
| N.H. Motor Transp. Ass'n Emple. Benefit Trust v. N.H. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, No. 2006-003,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, December 21, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Operation by employment benefit trust as an arrangement under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 415-E:1, 415-A:1 by providing health benefits to its members' employees made it an insurer for purposes of N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 404-B:5(IV). Thus, New Hampshire Insurance Guaranty Association was not liable for unpaid claims of trust's insolvent excess insurer.
|
|||||
| Prop. Portfolio Group, LLC v. Town of Derry, No. 2005-867,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, December 21, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an abutter filed its appeal five months after a planning board approved an application for site plan determination, the court held that its appeal was untimely under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 677:15(I) and, thus, the trial court did not err when it ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal.
|
|||||
| Vt. Wholesale Bldg. Prods. v. J.W. Jones Lumber Co., No. 2006-144,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, December 21, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order denying defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was vacated; trial court applied the stream of commerce rationale alone and did not require additional conduct on the part of defendant but, instead, based its finding of personal jurisdiction upon defendant's awareness that its product would likely reach New Hampshire.
|
|||||
| Bendetson v. Killarney, Inc., No. 2005-251,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, December 28, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in setting aside second businessman's election-to-purchase corporate shares; while N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 293-A:14:30(b) authorized second businessman to elect to purchase shares after judicial dissolution was sought, N.H. Rev. Stat. § 293-A:14-34(a) authorized trial court to set aside election if it was equitable to do so.
|
|||||
| In re Maxi Drug, Inc. (N.H. HHS), No. 2005-473,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, December 28, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: DHHS had no legal authority to withhold payments from Medicaid providers as a method of recouping Medicare reimbursements it was obligated to collect directly from Medicare. Because the DHHS commissioner's ruling was legally erroneous under 42 C.F.R. § 433.310, petitioner pharmacy providers were entitled to a writ of certiorari declaring it so.
|
|||||
| Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, No. 2005-809,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, December 28, 2006, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion in limine preserved an issue on appeal regarding an expert's qualifications to testify on the timing of a baby's injury under N.H. R. Evid. 702 and N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 516:29-a (2006); however, the trial court had not committed an unsustainable exercise of discretion in permitting the expert to testify.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
