13 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mard v. Town of Amherstgreen2 sentences2022See Mard v. Town of Amherst, 350 F.3d 184, 188 (1st Cir. 2003). 2022See Mard v. Town of Amherst, 350 F.3d 184, 188 (1st Cir. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mwangigreen1 sentence2021Our threshold determination in a procedural due process claim is “whether the challenged procedures concern a legally protected interest.” State v. Mwangi, 161 N.H. 699, 703 (2011) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In re Eduardo L.green1 sentence2011See In re Eduardo L., 136 N.H. 678, 686 (1993); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen1 sentence2011See In re Eduardo L., 136 N.H. 678, 686 (1993); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McLellangreen1 sentence2009Our threshold determination in a procedural due process claim is “whether the challenged procedures concern a legally protected interest.” State v. McLellan, 146 N.H. 108, 113 (2001) (quotation omitted); Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Wilkinson v. Austingreen1 sentence2009Our threshold determination in a procedural due process claim is “whether the challenged procedures concern a legally protected interest.” State v. McLellan, 146 N.H. 108, 113 (2001) (quotation omitted); Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ballgreen1 sentence2007State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 779998green1 sentence2006See, e.g., Vance v. Barrett, 345 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003) (acknowledging that standards for analyzing an unconstitutional condition in the context of Fifth Amendment takings claim may not be the same as in the context of a procedural due process claim); Philip Morris, Inc. v. Reilly, 312 F.3d 24, 46 (1st Cir. 2002) (noting that, under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, “different inquiries have developed which apply to different types of property” in the context of Fifth Amendment takings claims; when dealing with intellectual property, the condition need only be “rationally r | 1 | 1 |
cluster 783789green1 sentence2006See, e.g., Vance v. Barrett, 345 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003) (acknowledging that standards for analyzing an unconstitutional condition in the context of Fifth Amendment takings claim may not be the same as in the context of a procedural due process claim); Philip Morris, Inc. v. Reilly, 312 F.3d 24, 46 (1st Cir. 2002) (noting that, under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, “different inquiries have developed which apply to different types of property” in the context of Fifth Amendment takings claims; when dealing with intellectual property, the condition need only be “rationally r | 1 | 1 |
State v. Giordanogreen2 sentences1995See State v. Giordano, 138 N.H. 90, 93 , 635 A.2d 482, 483 (1993). 1995See State v. Giordano, 138 N.H. 90, 93 , 635 A.2d 482, 483 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Riblet Tramway Co. v. Stickneygreen2 sentences1990In Riblet Tramway Co. v. Stickney, 129 N.H. 140, 145 , 523 A.2d 107, 109-10 (1987), we stated: “In determining whether a particular State action violates the procedural due process requirement of the State Constitution, we undertake a two-part analysis. 1990In Riblet Tramway Co. v. Stickney, 129 N.H. 140, 145 , 523 A.2d 107, 109-10 (1987), we stated: “In determining whether a particular State action violates the procedural due process requirement of the State Constitution, we undertake a two-part analysis. | 1 | 1 |
Appeal of Catholic Medical Centergreen2 sentences1987Appeal of Catholic Medical Center, 128 N.H. 410, 416 , 515 A.2d 1205, 1208 (1986). 1987Appeal of Catholic Medical Center, 128 N.H. 410, 416 , 515 A.2d 1205, 1208 (1986). | 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. Veale
green
2 sentences2011Our threshold determination in a procedural due process claim is “whether the challenged procedures concern a legally protected interest.” Id. (quotation omitted). 2010“Our threshold determination in a procedural due process claim is whether the challenged procedures concern a legally protected interest.” State v. Veale, 158 N.H. 632, 637 , cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 748 (2009) (quotation omitted). | 2 | 2010–2011 |
González-Droz v. González-Colón
green
2 sentences2025“Whether the deprivation was, in fact, justified is not an element of the procedural due process inquiry.” González-Droz, 660 F.3d at 13 . [¶16] Here, the Board temporarily suspended Doe’s license on May 6, 2022, pursuant to RSA 329:18-b, and scheduled an adjudicative suspension hearing for May 11, 2022, which was later rescheduled to June 1, 2022, at Doe’s request. 2025González-Droz, 660 F.3d at 13 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Nickles
green
2 sentences2017Because the petitioner claims only that her due process rights under the State Constitution have been violated, we address her arguments solely under that constitution, using federal authority only to aid in our analysis. *1159 State v. Nickles , 144 N.H. 673 , 676, 749 A.2d 290 (2000). 2017Because the petitioner claims only that her due process rights under the State Constitution have been violated, we address her arguments solely under that constitution, using federal authority only to aid in our analysis. *1159 State v. Nickles , 144 N.H. 673 , 676, 749 A.2d 290 (2000). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. Beazer Materials & Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006See, e.g., Vance v. Barrett, 345 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003) (acknowledging that standards for analyzing an unconstitutional condition in the context of Fifth Amendment takings claim may not be the same as in the context of a procedural due process claim); Philip Morris, Inc. v. Reilly, 312 F.3d 24, 46 (1st Cir. 2002) (noting that, under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, “different inquiries have developed which apply to different types of property” in the context of Fifth Amendment takings claims; when dealing with intellectual property, the condition need only be “rationally r | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.