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 2006–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simpson v. Younggreen1 sentence2019See RSA 358-A:10, I (2009); Simpson v. Young, 153 N.H. 471, 474-75 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Hair Excitement, Inc. v. L'Oreal U.S.A., Inc.green1 sentence2011We have previously interpreted the word “court” to “refer[] to a judge rather than a jury” and, as such, have found that “under the plain language of the statute, the court is vested with the authority to decide claims brought under RSA chapter 358-A.” Hair Excitement v. L’Oreal U.S.A., 158 N.H. 363, 369 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
Milford Lumber Co. v. RCB Realty, Inc.green1 sentence2010“The trial court’s findings of fact and rulings of law will be upheld *169 unless they lack evidentiary support or constitute clear error of law.” Milford Lumber Co. v. RCB Realty, 147 N.H. 15, 19 (2001) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In re Monegreen1 sentence2006Petition of Mone, 143 N.H. 128, 136 (1998). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Scott Kukesh & a. v. Beverly P. Mutrie, Individually and as Trustee of the Beverly P. Mutrie Revocable Trust
green
1 sentence2020“If the court finds that . . . the act . . . was a willful or knowing violation . . . , it shall award as much as 3 times, but not less than 2 times, such amount.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.