Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1964–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Hampshire courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Santanagreen2 sentences2012For example, in State v. Santana, 133 N.H. 798, 807-09 , 586 A.2d 77 (1991), we declined to address an alternative ground for upholding the trial court's decision because the State did not raise the issue at trial and thus "the defendant ... never had the opportunity to consider that legal issue or the development *349 of facts that might or might not have supported [his] argument." Here, there is equally good reason not to follow the alternative grounds rule. 2012For example, in State v. Santana, 133 N.H. 798, 807-09 , 586 A.2d 77 (1991), we declined to address an alternative ground for upholding the trial court's decision because the State did not raise the issue at trial and thus "the defendant ... never had the opportunity to consider that legal issue or the development *349 of facts that might or might not have supported [his] argument." Here, there is equally good reason not to follow the alternative grounds rule. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Ficheragreen2 sentences2020We further defined the scope of the requirement that the defendant set forth the grounds in a notice of defense in State v. Fichera, 153 N.H. at 594-97 . 2020In Fichera, the defendant’s notice adequately set forth the grounds for an insanity defense by simply stating his “intention to assert the defense of insanity . . . at trial.” Fichera, 153 N.H. at 591, 595-96 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2017We note, however, that, subsequent to our decision in McKinnon-Andrews , the Illinois Supreme Court, in People v. Harris , 228 Ill.2d 222 , 319 Ill.Dec. 823 , 886 N.E.2d 947 (2008), overruled Gonzalez on the grounds that the inquiry into whether the questioning "changed the fundamental nature of the stop" is inconsistent with subsequent U.S. Supreme Court cases, which make clear that the scope of police questioning has a bearing on the lawfulness of a traffic stop only if its effect is to prolong the duration of the stop. 2017We note, however, that, subsequent to our decision in McKinnon-Andrews , the Illinois Supreme Court, in People v. Harris , 228 Ill.2d 222 , 319 Ill.Dec. 823 , 886 N.E.2d 947 (2008), overruled Gonzalez on the grounds that the inquiry into whether the questioning "changed the fundamental nature of the stop" is inconsistent with subsequent U.S. Supreme Court cases, which make clear that the scope of police questioning has a bearing on the lawfulness of a traffic stop only if its effect is to prolong the duration of the stop. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Hampshire. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Champagne
green
1 sentence2020We disagreed with the State that the defendant’s obligation to set forth the grounds for the defense noticed empowered “the trial court [to] test the validity of such grounds against any factual findings it makes in the course of pretrial proceedings”; “[t]he clear language of the rule is not susceptible of such an interpretation.” Id. at 429 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
green
1 sentence1964“The verdict of $31,500 against the defendant, brought about by the failure of the Trial Court to grant defendant’s motions for nonsuit and for directed verdict on the grounds of privilege, his failure to direct the jury that defendant’s published criticism was a matter of public concern, and that defendant was entitled to the defense of privileged criticism, his leaving to the jury the issue of malice of which there is no evidence, and his placing the burden on the defendant to prove the truth of his criticism, was a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Consti | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.