elementary and fundamental requirement (New Hampshire) · Go Syfert
← New Hampshire issues

elementary and fundamental requirement in New Hampshire

12 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2023 1 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.

Followed or applied (9)

CaseFollowedCited
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.green
scotus · 1950 · cited in 4 New Hampshire opinions naming this issue, 1978–2014
2 sentences

2014Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”); cf. Appeal of N.H.

1997In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950), the United States Supreme Court set forth a general standard for notice: An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.

44
City of Claremont v. Truellgreen
nh · 1985 · cited in 4 New Hampshire opinions naming this issue, 1999–2006
2 sentences

2002“It is well settled that an elementary and fundamental requirement of due process is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” City of Claremont v. Truell, 126 N.H. 30, 35 (1985) (quotations, brackets and ellipses omitted).

2001Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, “an elementary and fundamental requirement of due process is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” City of Claremont v. Truell, 126 N.H. 30, 35 (1985) (brackets, quotations and ellipses omitted).

44
Douglas v. Douglasgreen
nh · 1999 · cited in 2 New Hampshire opinions naming this issue, 2019–2023
2 sentences

2023“Under both Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, an elementary and fundamental requirement of due process is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Douglas v. Douglas, 143 N.H. 419, 423 (1999) (quotation omitted).

2019Under both Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, “an elementary and fundamental requirement of due process is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Douglas v. Douglas, 143 N.H. 419, 423 (1999) (quotation omitted).

22
Duclos v. Duclosgreen
nh · 1991 · cited in 1 New Hampshire opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019Reasonable notice means notice that is “reasonably calculated to give the [litigant] actual notice of the issue and the hearing.” Duclos v. Duclos, 134 N.H. 42, 44-45 (1991) (quotation omitted).

11
Appeal of New Hampshire Fireworks, Inc.green
nh · 2004 · cited in 1 New Hampshire opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014Fireworks, 151 N.H. 335, 338 (2004) (under State Constitution, “[a] fundamental requirement of the constitutional right to be heard is notice of the impending action that affords the party an opportunity to protect [a legally protected interest] through the presentation of objections and evidence” (quotation omitted)); Garofalo v. Dowling, 635 N.Y.S.2d 986, 989 (App. Div. 1996) (holding that notice that referred to “unacceptable practices” in amended regulations, rather than those in effect during audit period, did not violate due process).

11
Garofalo v. Dowlinggreen
nyappdiv · 1996 · cited in 1 New Hampshire opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014Fireworks, 151 N.H. 335, 338 (2004) (under State Constitution, “[a] fundamental requirement of the constitutional right to be heard is notice of the impending action that affords the party an opportunity to protect [a legally protected interest] through the presentation of objections and evidence” (quotation omitted)); Garofalo v. Dowling, 635 N.Y.S.2d 986, 989 (App. Div. 1996) (holding that notice that referred to “unacceptable practices” in amended regulations, rather than those in effect during audit period, did not violate due process).

11
Dow v. Town of Effinghamgreen
nh · 2002 · cited in 1 New Hampshire opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008“It is well settled that an elementary and fundamental requirement of due process is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Dow v. Town of Effingham, 148 N.H. 121, 129 (2002) (quotation omitted).

11
Town of Swanzey v. Liebelergreen
nh · 1996 · cited in 1 New Hampshire opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
1 sentence

2001Thus, “[a defendant] may not be fined with civil penalties under RSA 676:17 unless [he is] given reasonable written notice that he is in fact in violation of a town ordinance.” Toimi of Swanzey v. Liebeler, 140 N.H. 760, 763 (1996).

11
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craftgreen
scotus · 1978 · cited in 1 New Hampshire opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979
1 sentence

1979“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 13 (1978).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Hampshire. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Where else courts name it

OH 72 (1980–2025) TX 50 (1965–2023) CA 42 (1953–2026) IN 36 (1894–2023) NY 32 (1966–2026) LA 24 (1968–2024) IL 23 (1899–2025) MI 22 (1951–2026) PA 19 (1973–2023) MO 19 (1972–2024) MD 16 (1969–2024) OK 15 (1975–2011) CT 15 (1984–2023) NC 13 (1951–2024) NH 12 (1978–2023) NJ 12 (1971–2020) FL 12 (1981–2024) VA 11 (1978–2016) AZ 10 (1967–2021) GA 10 (1974–2003) AL 10 (1904–2025) MA 10 (1988–2026) WA 9 (1978–2018) KS 8 (1978–2005) CO 8 (1994–2011) OR 8 (1953–2020) SD 7 (1991–2015) NM 7 (1995–2020) WI 6 (1981–2020) VT 6 (1997–2020) HI 6 (1923–2022) UT 6 (1983–2020) DC 6 (1975–2003) MS 5 (1984–2016) TN 5 (1976–2015) MN 5 (1956–2018) AR 4 (2002–2018) RI 4 (1963–2011) IA 4 (1974–2016) WV 4 (1990–2019) MT 3 (1926–2007) ND 3 (1986–2014) KY 3 (1988–2021) NV 3 (1977–1998) AK 3 (1984–1994) ME 3 (1998–2007) ID 2 (1958–1986) NE 2 (1984–1988) SC 2 (2001–2005) DE 2 (2018–2019)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check