30 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jacobs v. Director, N.H. Division of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2008The defendant argues that Hamum’s rule should thus be seen as “no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine.” See Jacobs, 149 N.H. at 505 ; Nieto v. State, 70 P.3d 747 , 748 n.7 (Nev. 2003) (listing the jurisdictions). “[T]he overwhelming majority of states allow for the granting of credit for time served in presentence confinement while awaiting extradition when the sole reason for the foreign incarceration is the offense for which the defendant is ultimately convicted and sentenced.” Nieto, 70 P.3d at 748 . 2007As the discussion below demonstrates, we believe that we must abandon the intermediate scrutiny test we developed in Carson because related principles of law have so far developed as to have left this test “no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine.” Jacobs, 149 N.H. at 505 (quotation omitted). | 4 | 8 |
State v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2014We conclude that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that our decision in King “is no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine,” State v. Holmes, 154 N.H. 723, 729 (2007) (quotation omitted), and we therefore decline to overrule it. 2008To the extent that Gallagher argues that we should overrule Callahan because it is merely a remnant of abandoned doctrine, see State v. Holmes, 154 N.H. 723, 724-25 (2007), we disagree. | 3 | 5 |
Maplevale Builders, LLC v. Town of Danvillegreen2 sentences2023Maplevale Builders v. Town of Danville, 165 N.H. 99, 105 (2013). 2014Maplevale Builders v. Town of Danville, 165 N.H. 99, 105 (2013) (quotation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Caseyred2 sentences2003Several factors inform our judgment, including: (1) “whether the rule has proven to be intolerable simply in defying practical workability,” id. at 854 ; (2) “whether the rule is subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a special hardship to the consequences of overruling,” id.; (3) “whether related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine,” id. at 855 ; and (4) “whether facts have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification,” id. 2003Several factors inform our judgment, including: (1) “whether the rule has proven to be intolerable simply in defying practical workability,” id. at 854 ; (2) “whether the rule is subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a special hardship to the consequences of overruling,” id.; (3) “whether related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine,” id. at 855 ; and (4) “whether facts have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification,” id. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Quinterogreen2 sentences2020Id. at 532-33 . 2015Quintero, 162 N.H. at 533 . | 1 | 5 |
State v. Durangreen2 sentences2020“Thus, when asked to reconsider a holding, the question is not whether we would decide the issue differently de novo, but whether the ruling has come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.” Id. 5 We will overturn a decision only after considering: (1) whether the rule has proven to be intolerable simply by defying practical workability; (2) whether the rule is subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a special hardship to the consequence of overruling; (3) whether related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no 2011Although Duran cited the four-factor test and claimed to apply it, see Duran, 158 N.H. at 153-54 , the actual analysis used by the court in that ease makes it plain that we overruled Hamum not because it had become unworkable or a remnant of abandoned doctrine, as the defendant argued, see id. at 154 , but principally because we believed the case was badly reasoned. | 1 | 3 |
Alonzi v. Northeast Generation Services Co.green2 sentences2010Viewed in this light, the doctrine of necessaries is “no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine” that has been “robbed ... [of its] justification.” Alonzi, 156 N.H. at 660 (quotation omitted). 2010Viewed in this light, the doctrine of necessaries is "no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine" that has been "robbed ... [of its] justification." Alonzi, 156 N.H. at 660 , 940 A.2d 1153 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Matthewsgreen1 sentence2020See Matthews, 157 N.H. at 420 . | 1 | 1 |
Appeal of Phillipsgreen1 sentence2014Id. at 231-32 (quotation omitted). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ford v. New Hampshire Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2021Therefore, we will overturn a decision only after considering whether: (1) “the rule has proven to be intolerable simply by defying practical workability”; (2) “the rule is subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a special hardship to the consequence of overruling”; (3) “related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine”; and (4) “facts have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification.” Id. (quotations omitted). 2021“Although these factors guide our judgment, no single factor is wholly determinative, because the doctrine of stare decisis is not one to be either rigidly applied or blindly followed.” Id. | 2 | 2013–2021 |
State of New Hampshire v. John A. Smith
green
2 sentences2017State v. Smith , 166 N.H. 40 , 44, 86 A.3d 114 (2014). 2017State v. Smith , 166 N.H. 40 , 44, 86 A.3d 114 (2014). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Kalil v. Town of Dummer Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
1 sentence2011Kalil, 159 N.H. at 731 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Community Resources for Justice, Inc. v. City of Manchester
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2008We believe that the McKenney-Komisarek rule, regarding the retrospective application of an amendment affecting appellate rights, must be abandoned because “related principles of law have so far developed as to have left [this] old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine.” Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Komisarek
green
1 sentence2008We overrule McKenney and Komisarek to the extent that they expanded the interpretation of the Ex Post Facto Clause to hold that the State had the burden of demonstrating “a legitimate need to employ [a] new procedure in cases involving prior acts” where “reliance on an established procedure is reasonable.” Komisarek, 116 N.H. at 428 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Nieto v. State
green
2 sentences2008The defendant argues that Hamum’s rule should thus be seen as “no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine.” See Jacobs, 149 N.H. at 505 ; Nieto v. State, 70 P.3d 747 , 748 n.7 (Nev. 2003) (listing the jurisdictions). “[T]he overwhelming majority of states allow for the granting of credit for time served in presentence confinement while awaiting extradition when the sole reason for the foreign incarceration is the offense for which the defendant is ultimately convicted and sentenced.” Nieto, 70 P.3d at 748 . 2008The defendant argues that Hamum’s rule should thus be seen as “no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine.” See Jacobs, 149 N.H. at 505 ; Nieto v. State, 70 P.3d 747 , 748 n.7 (Nev. 2003) (listing the jurisdictions). “[T]he overwhelming majority of states allow for the granting of credit for time served in presentence confinement while awaiting extradition when the sole reason for the foreign incarceration is the offense for which the defendant is ultimately convicted and sentenced.” Nieto, 70 P.3d at 748 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.