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 1986–2010 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. Ballgreen2 sentences1999We first analyze the defendant’s double jeopardy claim under the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 , 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983), and use federal law only as a guide to our analysis. 1999We first analyze the defendant’s double jeopardy claim under the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 , 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983), and use federal law only as a guide to our analysis. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Pinkhamgreen2 sentences2010See State v. Pinkham, 141 N.H. 188, 189 , 679 A.2d 589 (1996). 2010See State v. Pinkham, 141 N.H. 188, 189 , 679 A.2d 589 (1996). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Paquingreen2 sentences1999See State v. Paquin, 140 N.H. 525, 527 , 668 A.2d 47, 49 (1995). 1999See State v. Paquin, 140 N.H. 525, 527 , 668 A.2d 47, 49 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mayagreen2 sentences1996We decide this case based on our interpretation of the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 , 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using federal law only as a guide to our analysis, see State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594 , 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985). 1996We decide this case based on our interpretation of the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 , 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using federal law only as a guide to our analysis, see State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594 , 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Victor F. Maganagreen1 sentence1996Because the Federal Constitution provides no greater protection to the defendant than the State Constitution, see United States v. Magana, 512 F.2d 1169, 1170-71 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975), we conduct no separate federal analysis. | 1 | 1 |
Michigan v. Longgreen1 sentence1986See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Merritt v. United States
green
1 sentence1996Because the Federal Constitution provides no greater protection to the defendant than the State Constitution, see United States v. Magana, 512 F.2d 1169, 1170-71 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975), we conduct no separate federal analysis. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.