12 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thomas Reid v. New Hampshire Attorney Generalgreen2 sentences2025Attorney Gen., 169 N.H. 509, 529-31 (2016) (explaining that witnesses in police investigations can have privacy interests in personally identifying and substantive information from interviews and that “a fact-specific inquiry is required in each case”). 2025Id. at 531 . | 1 | 3 |
Rocque v. Freedom of Information Commissiongreen1 sentence2016Cf. Rocque, 774 A.2d at 959 (disagreeing with “trial court’s ruling that the identity of a complainant in a sexual harassment complaint and related information are always exempt from disclosure, irrespective of the particular facts of a case”). *532 Turning to the second step of the balancing test, the plaintiff claims a “public interest in determining if the Attorney General had grounds to unilaterally remove an elected official... [and] in disclosing the information relied upon by the Attorney General.” We recognize that “[t]he public has a significant interest in knowing that a government i | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel Department of Human Services v. D. T. C.green1 sentence2016See, e.g., Barnes v. Com., 622 S.E.2d 278, 282 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) (noting that analysis of sufficiency of evidence supporting child endangerment conviction depends upon specific circumstances of the case); cf. State Dept. of Human Servs. v. D.T.C., 219 P.3d 610, 616 (Or. | 1 | 1 |
Barnes v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Barnes v. Com., 622 S.E.2d 278, 282 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) (noting that analysis of sufficiency of evidence supporting child endangerment conviction depends upon specific circumstances of the case); cf. State Dept. of Human Servs. v. D.T.C., 219 P.3d 610, 616 (Or. | 1 | 1 |
Gregg v. Georgiagreen1 sentence2010See Gregg, 428 U.S. at 198, 205 (plurality opinion). | 1 | 1 |
In re Donovangreen1 sentence2007Cf, e.g., In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 59 (2005) (vacating modification of child support where “[t]he father’s claim that the mother could obtain employment as a bookkeeper [was] speculation unsupported by any concrete evidence”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lockegreen1 sentence2003See State v. Locke, 149 N.H. 1, 6 (2002) (holding that custody is reviewed de novo). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jamesgreen1 sentence2003United States v. James, 301 F. Supp. 107, 117 (W.D. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lovelygreen2 sentences1990See, e.g., State v. Lovely, 124 N.H. 690, 697 , 480 A.2d 847, 851 (1984). 1990See, e.g., State v. Lovely, 124 N.H. 690, 697 , 480 A.2d 847, 851 (1984). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Grafton Cnty. Dep't of Corr.
neutral
2 sentences2025Id. 2025“Without a more detailed record, the trial court lacked sufficient information to conduct the fact-specific analysis necessary to determine whether the footage implicates a privacy interest by depicting [interviewee] faces, containing other personally identifying characteristics, or otherwise subjecting individuals depicted to embarrassment or reputational harm.” Brown, 177 N.H. at ___, 2025 N.H. 2 , ¶¶12-13 (observing that courts generally look to the content of the disputed records to determine whether release would implicate privacy interests or subject individuals to harm). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Fine v. United States Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General
green
1 sentence2016Cf. Rocque, 774 A.2d at 959 (disagreeing with “trial court’s ruling that the identity of a complainant in a sexual harassment complaint and related information are always exempt from disclosure, irrespective of the particular facts of a case”). *532 Turning to the second step of the balancing test, the plaintiff claims a “public interest in determining if the Attorney General had grounds to unilaterally remove an elected official... [and] in disclosing the information relied upon by the Attorney General.” We recognize that “[t]he public has a significant interest in knowing that a government i | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Adams
green
1 sentence2014“This is a fact-specific inquiry that requires the admission of evidence as to the parties’ needs and abilities.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Acosta-Colon
green
1 sentence2003Based upon a fact-specific inquiry, see id., we do not believe that they can. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Hardt v. Brink
green
1 sentence2002Hardt, 192 F. Supp. at 881 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.