12 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sullivan v. Town of Hampton Board of Selectmengreen2 sentences2019See Sullivan v. Town of Hampton Bd. of Selectmen , 153 N.H. 690 , 692, 917 A.2d 188 (2006) ("The doctrine of mootness is designed to avoid deciding issues that have become academic or dead." (quotation omitted) ). 2019See Sullivan v. Town of Hampton Bd. of Selectmen , 153 N.H. 690 , 692, 917 A.2d 188 (2006) ("The doctrine of mootness is designed to avoid deciding issues that have become academic or dead." (quotation omitted) ). | 5 | 5 |
Batchelder v. Town of Plymouth Zoning Board of Adjustmentgreen2 sentences2023See Batchelder v. Town of Plymouth Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 160 N.H. 253, 255 (2010) (“The doctrine of mootness is designed to avoid deciding issues that have become academic or dead.”). 2016Batchelder v. Town of Plymouth Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 160 N.H. 253, 255 (2010) (“The doctrine of mootness is designed to avoid deciding issues that have become academic or dead.”). | 3 | 3 |
In re Brooksgreen2 sentences2008The doctrine of mootness is designed to avoid deciding issues that "have become academic or dead." Sullivan v. Town of Hampton Bd. of Selectmen, 153 N.H. 690, 692 , 917 A.2d 188 (2006); Petition of Brooks, 140 N.H. 813, 816 , 678 A.2d 140 (1996). 2008The doctrine of mootness is designed to avoid deciding issues that "have become academic or dead." Sullivan v. Town of Hampton Bd. of Selectmen, 153 N.H. 690, 692 , 917 A.2d 188 (2006); Petition of Brooks, 140 N.H. 813, 816 , 678 A.2d 140 (1996). | 3 | 3 |
LEBARON v. Wightgreen2 sentences2022Husband acknowledges that his appellate issue — whether the trial court erred as a matter of law by ruling that it was not required to enforce the prenuptial agreement when issuing temporary orders — could be “technically moot” because the court “eventually enforced the prenuptial agreement.” He urges us to decide the issue nonetheless because it is “an important issue of public policy” that is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” “The doctrine of mootness is designed to avoid deciding issues that have become academic or dead.” LeBaron v. Wight, 156 N.H. 583, 585 (2007) (quotation omit 2022Husband acknowledges that his appellate issue — whether the trial court erred as a matter of law by ruling that it was not required to enforce the prenuptial agreement when issuing temporary orders — could be “technically moot” because the court “eventually enforced the prenuptial agreement.” He urges us to decide the issue nonetheless because it is “an important issue of public policy” that is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” “The doctrine of mootness is designed to avoid deciding issues that have become academic or dead.” LeBaron v. Wight, 156 N.H. 583, 585 (2007) (quotation omit | 2 | 2 |
Royer v. State Department of Employment Securitygreen2 sentences2008It is well-established that "[m]ootness is not subject to rigid rules, but is a matter of convenience and discretion." Royer v. State Dep't of Employment Sec., 118 N.H. 673, 675 , 394 A.2d 828 (1978). 2008It is well-established that "[m]ootness is not subject to rigid rules, but is a matter of convenience and discretion." Royer v. State Dep't of Employment Sec., 118 N.H. 673, 675 , 394 A.2d 828 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Hampshire. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||