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.
6 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Fowlergreen1 sentence2006See id. at 520-21 . | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. Bennettgreen1 sentence2003See Cook v. Bennett, 51 N.H. 85, 92 (1871); Key Bank of Maine v. Latshaw, 137 N.H. 665, 673 (1993); cf. State v. Gordon, 141 N.H. 703, 705 (1997) (attorney-client privilege). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilkinsongreen1 sentence2003While the State concedes that the defendant preserved his objection to the admission of Linda Pelletier’s testimony on the grounds of marital privilege, it argues that he never asserted that the sexual acts in question “were communicative.” Consequently, the State, citing State v. Wilkinson, 136 N.H. 170, 177-78 (1992), contends that the defendant is precluded from arguing- on appeal that the marital sexual acts were privileged communications. | 1 | 1 |
Key Bank v. Latshawgreen1 sentence2003See Cook v. Bennett, 51 N.H. 85, 92 (1871); Key Bank of Maine v. Latshaw, 137 N.H. 665, 673 (1993); cf. State v. Gordon, 141 N.H. 703, 705 (1997) (attorney-client privilege). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gordongreen1 sentence2003See Cook v. Bennett, 51 N.H. 85, 92 (1871); Key Bank of Maine v. Latshaw, 137 N.H. 665, 673 (1993); cf. State v. Gordon, 141 N.H. 703, 705 (1997) (attorney-client privilege). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Bahegreen1 sentence2003United States v. Bahe, 128 F.3d 1440, 1443 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1033 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Tobias v. Adamsgreen2 sentences1993See Wiley v. McBride, 74 Ark. 34, 37 , 85 S.W. 84, 85 (1905); Tobias v. Adams, 201 Cal. 689, 699 , 258 P. 588, 592 (1927). 1993See Wiley v. McBride, 74 Ark. 34, 37 , 85 S.W. 84, 85 (1905); Tobias v. Adams, 201 Cal. 689, 699 , 258 P. 588, 592 (1927). | 1 | 1 |
Wiley v. McBridegreen2 sentences1993See Wiley v. McBride, 74 Ark. 34, 37 , 85 S.W. 84, 85 (1905); Tobias v. Adams, 201 Cal. 689, 699 , 258 P. 588, 592 (1927). 1993See Wiley v. McBride, 74 Ark. 34, 37 , 85 S.W. 84, 85 (1905); Tobias v. Adams, 201 Cal. 689, 699 , 258 P. 588, 592 (1927). | 1 | 1 |
Clements v. Marstongreen1 sentence1992The marital privilege is not a blanket immunity, Corson v. Murinane, 51 N.H. 92 (1871) (note); rather, it is a privilege protecting marital confidences, Clements v. Marston, 52 N.H. 31, 38 (1872). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. John Katsougrakis, John Hiotisgreen1 sentence1992See United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769, 778 (2d Cir. 1983) (statements to wife tended to subject declarant to criminal liability and such marital communications were corroborated by other evidence), ce rt. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984); Proposed Fed. R. | 1 | 1 |
French v. Frenchgreen2 sentences1989This is the standard for determining the ideal level of alimony, French v. French, 117 N.H. 696, 698 , 378 A.2d 1127, 1128 (1977), where the circumstances of the parties make its attainment possible, and a determination of that standard should be made at the time of the original award. 1989This is the standard for determining the ideal level of alimony, French v. French, 117 N.H. 696, 698 , 378 A.2d 1127, 1128 (1977), where the circumstances of the parties make its attainment possible, and a determination of that standard should be made at the time of the original award. | 1 | 1 |
Fortuna v. Fortunagreen2 sentences1989Thus, the standard for modification, that financial capacities or the needs of the parties have changed substantially since the prior order, see Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 549 , 176 A.2d 708, 710 (1961), does not necessarily require new proof of the marital standard as a benchmark in setting the level of any revised award. 1989Thus, the standard for modification, that financial capacities or the needs of the parties have changed substantially since the prior order, see Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 549 , 176 A.2d 708, 710 (1961), does not necessarily require new proof of the marital standard as a benchmark in setting the level of any revised award. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bahe v. United States
green
1 sentence2003United States v. Bahe, 128 F.3d 1440, 1443 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1033 (1998). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. Nathan Lang
green
1 sentence1992Confessing to the commission of a crime certainly “tend[s] to subject the declarant to ... criminal liability,” id., regardless of the existence of a marital privilege. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Katsougrakis v. United States
green
1 sentence1992See United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769, 778 (2d Cir. 1983) (statements to wife tended to subject declarant to criminal liability and such marital communications were corroborated by other evidence), ce rt. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984); Proposed Fed. R. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.