Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardnerred2 sentences2005Cir. 1984) (quoting Abbott Laboratories v. Gardener, 387 U.S. 136, 152 (1967)). 1998The ripeness doctrine prevents courts “from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and . . . protects] agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967); see Maine Public Service Co. v. P.U.C., 490 A.2d 1218, 1221 ,(Me. 1985); Appeal of Tancrede, 135 N.H. 602, 604 , 608 A.2d 1308, 1309 (1992). | 2 | 2 |
State of New Hampshire v. Justin L. Roygreen1 sentence2015See State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 286 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
Appeal of Tancredegreen2 sentences1998The ripeness doctrine prevents courts “from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and . . . protects] agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967); see Maine Public Service Co. v. P.U.C., 490 A.2d 1218, 1221 ,(Me. 1985); Appeal of Tancrede, 135 N.H. 602, 604 , 608 A.2d 1308, 1309 (1992). 1998The ripeness doctrine prevents courts “from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and . . . protects] agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967); see Maine Public Service Co. v. P.U.C., 490 A.2d 1218, 1221 ,(Me. 1985); Appeal of Tancrede, 135 N.H. 602, 604 , 608 A.2d 1308, 1309 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Maine Public Service Co. v. Public Utilities Commissiongreen1 sentence1998The ripeness doctrine prevents courts “from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and . . . protects] agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967); see Maine Public Service Co. v. P.U.C., 490 A.2d 1218, 1221 ,(Me. 1985); Appeal of Tancrede, 135 N.H. 602, 604 , 608 A.2d 1308, 1309 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Indiana Department of Environmental Management v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc.green1 sentence1998Furthermore, “[r]ipeness relates to the degree to which the defined issues in a case are based on actual facts . . . and are capable of being adjudicated on an adequately developed record.” Dept. of Enviro. v. Chemical Waste, 643 N.E.2d 331, 336 (Ind. 1994). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
University System of New Hampshire Board of Trustees & A. v. Marco Dorfsman & A
green
2 sentences2020“The second prong of the ripeness test requires that the contested action impose an impact on the parties sufficiently direct and immediate as to render the issue appropriate for judicial review at this stage.” Id. (quotation omitted). 2019“The second prong of the ripeness test requires that the contested action impose an impact on the parties sufficiently direct and immediate as to render the issue appropriate for judicial review at this stage.” Id. (quotation omitted). | 4 | 2019–2024 |
Hill-Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge Lighting Precinct
green
1 sentence2024Thus, “a State taking claim must meet the ripeness requirement of presenting a final decision of the applicable governmental entity regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue.” Id. (quotation and brackets omitted). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State of New Hampshire v. Arthur Mottola
green
1 sentence2015“The second prong of the ripeness test requires that the contested action impose an impact on the parties sufficiently direct and immediate as to render the issue appropriate for judicial review at this stage.” Id. (quotations omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
green
1 sentence2009The plaintiff argues that its claim is ripe, citing Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), for the following proposition: While a landowner must give a land-use authority an opportunity to exercise its discretion, once it becomes clear that the agency lacks the discretion to permit any development, or the permissible uses of the property are known to a reasonable degree of certainty, a takings claim is likely to have ripened. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City
red
1 sentence2009The case now before us squarely presents the issue on an adequate record, and we now hold that a State taking claim must meet the ripeness requirement of presenting “a final decision [of the applicable governmental entity] regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue.” Williamson, 473 U.S. at 186 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
cluster 431653
green
1 sentence2005The second prong of the ripeness test requires that the contested action impose an impact on the parties “sufficiently direct and immediate as to render the issue appropriate for judicial review at this stage.” Alascom, Inc. v. F.C.C., 727 F.2d 1212 , 1217 (D.C. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.