9 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clark v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2011Applying the choice-of-law factors set forth in Clark v. Clark, 107 N.H. 351, 353-55 (1966), and Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 131 N.H. 6, 13 (1988), the trial court determined that Connecticut’s limitations period, Conn. Gen. 1993The choice-influencing considerations adopted by this court in Clark v. Clark, 107 N.H. 351 , 222 A.2d 205 (1966), control the choice of law analysis. | 1 | 2 |
Fog Motorsports 3, Inc. v. Arctic Cat Sales, Inc.green1 sentence2018Cf., e.g., Fog Motorsports #3 v. Arctic Cat Sales, 159 N.H. 266, 267 (2009) (quoting both a forum selection clause and a choice of law clause in a contract). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Muchmoregreen1 sentence2016Cf. In the Matter of Muchmore & Jaycox, 159 N.H. 470, 472 (2009) (noting that there was no choice of law issue because parties agreed that New Hampshire law governed). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Wessels, Arnold & Henderson v. National Medical Waste, Inc.green1 sentence2014Medical Waste, 65 F.3d 1427, 1434 (8th Cir. 1995) (“The choice of law clause ... is insufficient standing alone to confer jurisdiction. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Morbark Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2011Id. at 14 ; see also Smith v. Morbark Industries, Inc., 733 F. Supp. 484, 486 (D.N.H. 1990) (“the New Hampshire Supreme Court left open the possibility that the statute of limitations question could be analyzed with reference to . . . choice-of-law analysis in the appropriate case”). | 1 | 1 |
Lessard v. Clarkegreen1 sentence2009See Lessard v. Clarke, 143 N.H. 555, 556 (1999) (courts must consider: “(1) the predictability of results; (2) the maintenance of reasonable orderliness and good relationships among the States in our federal system; (3) simplification of the judicial task; (4) advancement by the court of its own State’s governmental interests rather than those of other States; and (5) the court’s preference for what it regards as the sounder rule of law” (quotation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Glowski v. Allstate Insurancegreen2 sentences2001See Glowski, 134 N.H. at 198 , 589 A.2d at 595 . 2001See Glowski, 134 N.H. at 198 , 589 A.2d at 595 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mark E. McDonough v. Patrick M. McDonough & a.
green
1 sentence2018Nothing in the plain meaning of the language used in the above-quoted provision, see McDonough, 169 N.H. at 541 , establishes any place where future disputes will be litigated. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011Applying the choice-of-law factors set forth in Clark v. Clark, 107 N.H. 351, 353-55 (1966), and Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 131 N.H. 6, 13 (1988), the trial court determined that Connecticut’s limitations period, Conn. Gen. 2011Id. at 14 ; see also Smith v. Morbark Industries, Inc., 733 F. Supp. 484, 486 (D.N.H. 1990) (“the New Hampshire Supreme Court left open the possibility that the statute of limitations question could be analyzed with reference to . . . choice-of-law analysis in the appropriate case”). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Lynch
green
1 sentence2011Relying on State v. Lynch, 969 P.2d 920 (Mont. 1998), the defendant contends that the trial court should have conducted a choice-of-law analysis to determine whether New Hampshire law or South Carolina law governed the admissibility of the recordings. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Fox v. Morrison Motor Freight, Inc.
green
2 sentences1974While this may well be a major factor *592 in an automobile accident in a State with limitation of recovery involving residents of another State having no limitation of recovery (Fox v. Morrison Motor Freight, Inc., 25 Ohio St. 2d 193 , 267 N.E.2d 405 (1971)), it lacks significance where the accident arises from the predominantly localized activity of a New Hampshire defendant. 1974While this may well be a major factor *592 in an automobile accident in a State with limitation of recovery involving residents of another State having no limitation of recovery (Fox v. Morrison Motor Freight, Inc., 25 Ohio St. 2d 193 , 267 N.E.2d 405 (1971)), it lacks significance where the accident arises from the predominantly localized activity of a New Hampshire defendant. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.