11 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2004 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Landrygreen2 sentences2002We therefore, “do not engage in a separate federal due process analysis, but rather cite federal authority as an aid to our analysis under the State Constitution.” State v. Landry, 146 N.H. 635, 636 (2001) (citation omitted). 2002“Because the defendant relies solely upon the State Constitution, we do not engage in a separate federal due process analysis[.]” Landry, 146 N.H. at 636 . | 1 | 2 |
Lyme Timber Co. v. DSF Investors LLCgreen1 sentence2004Second, the requirements of the Federal Due Process clause must be satisfied.” Lyme Timber Co. v. DSF Investors, 150 N.H. 557, 559 (2004) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Dagesse v. Plant Hotel N.V.green1 sentence2004Id.; see also Dagesse v. Plant Hotel, N.V., 113 F. Supp. 2d 211, 215 (D. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shannongreen1 sentence2002Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution provides in part: No subject shall be held to answer for any crime, or offense, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him____No subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land____ We have interpreted Part I, Article 15 as safeguarding “the right to indictment by a grand jury... for any offense punisha | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ericksongreen1 sentence2002Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution provides in part: No subject shall be held to answer for any crime, or offense, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him____No subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land____ We have interpreted Part I, Article 15 as safeguarding “the right to indictment by a grand jury... for any offense punisha | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2002Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution provides in part: No subject shall be held to answer for any crime, or offense, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him____No subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land____ We have interpreted Part I, Article 15 as safeguarding “the right to indictment by a grand jury... for any offense punisha | 1 | 1 |
State v. Laforestgreen1 sentence2001Because the defendant relies solely upon the State Constitution, we do not engage in a separate federal due process analysis, see State v. Summers, 142 N.H. 429, 431-32 (1997), but rather cite federal authority as an aid to our analysis under the State Constitution, see State v. LaForest, 140 N.H. 286, 292 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Summersgreen1 sentence2001Because the defendant relies solely upon the State Constitution, we do not engage in a separate federal due process analysis, see State v. Summers, 142 N.H. 429, 431-32 (1997), but rather cite federal authority as an aid to our analysis under the State Constitution, see State v. LaForest, 140 N.H. 286, 292 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ellsworthgreen2 sentences1999Cf. State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 718-19 , 709 A.2d 768, 773-74 (1998) (due process rights may trump evidentiary rules but defendant must first make threshold showing of probity to justify admission of testimony). 1999Cf. State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 718-19 , 709 A.2d 768, 773-74 (1998) (due process rights may trump evidentiary rules but defendant must first make threshold showing of probity to justify admission of testimony). | 1 | 1 |
Brother Records, Inc. v. HarperCollins Publishersgreen2 sentences1997“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits personal jurisdiction over a defendant in any State with which the defendant has certain minimum contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Brother Records, 141 N.H. at 324 , 682 A.2d at 715 (quotations and ellipses omitted). 1997“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits personal jurisdiction over a defendant in any State with which the defendant has certain minimum contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Brother Records, 141 N.H. at 324 , 682 A.2d at 715 (quotations and ellipses omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Arkansas State Hospital v. Gosleegreen1 sentence1996A state agency, however, “cannot invoke the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment against the State itself,” Arkansas State Hospital v. Goslee, 623 S.W.2d 513, 515 (Ark. 1981), because the federal due process clause protects “person[s],” not governments. | 1 | 1 |
Bishop v. Woodgreen1 sentence1986Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 344 (1976); Colburn, supra at 64 , 382 A.2d at 909 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Metcalf v. Lawson
green
1 sentence2004Second, the requirements of the Federal Due Process clause must be satisfied.” Id. (brackets omitted). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Cook
green
1 sentence1989State v. Cook, 125 N.H. 452, 458 , 481 A.2d 823 , 828 (1984) (citing Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980) (holding that it was permissible to refer to an earlier invalid conviction for the purpose of identifying a class to which a penal statute applied)). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Boswell
green
1 sentence1989State v. Cook, 125 N.H. 452, 458 , 481 A.2d 823 , 828 (1984) (citing Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980) (holding that it was permissible to refer to an earlier invalid conviction for the purpose of identifying a class to which a penal statute applied)). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Lewis v. United States
green
1 sentence1989State v. Cook, 125 N.H. 452, 458 , 481 A.2d 823 , 828 (1984) (citing Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980) (holding that it was permissible to refer to an earlier invalid conviction for the purpose of identifying a class to which a penal statute applied)). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Ralph Henry Cooper v. United States
green
1 sentence1986The defendant, to be sure, places great weight on the reasoning of Cooper v. United States, 594 F.2d 12 (4th Cir. 1979), which held a negotiated plea agreement enforceable on two grounds: the fifth amendment guarantee of due process and the sixth amendment guarantee of effective assistance of counsel, which the court thought would be jeopardized if defense counsel were unable to make a binding executory plea agreement. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Colburn v. Personnel Commission
green
1 sentence1986Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 344 (1976); Colburn, supra at 64 , 382 A.2d at 909 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.