N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. » N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. / Title i / Chapter 21
New Hampshire Revised Statutes

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 21:44 (2026)

Age of Majority; Adults

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NH-GCgc.nh.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    21:44 Age of Majority; Adults. – Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the words "adult", "majority", "age of majority", "full age or lawful age", and all other terms of referring to those persons who are to be considered adults, shall mean those persons who have attained the age of 18 years.

Source. 1973, 72:72, eff. June 3, 1973.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1976–2019 · leading case: Norton v. Patten, 480 A.2d 190 (N.H. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Norton v. Patten, 480 A.2d 190 (N.H. 1984). · cites it 6× “1983); RSA 21:44 (Supp. 1983). The legislature did not, however, change the provisions of RSA 508:8.”
Sinclair v. Brill, 815 F. Supp. 44 (D.N.H. 1993). · cites it 2× “See N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 21:44 (1988). 4 . In support of this argument, the defendants cite the decision of the Michigan Appeals Court in Meiers-Post v.”
In re Berg, 886 A.2d 980 (N.H. 2005). ““Adult” is defined in RSA 21:44 (2000) as “those persons who have attained the age of 18 years.”
James Farmer v. State of Florida, 268 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). · cites it 2× “550 (2018); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 21:44 (2018); N.J.”
Walker v. Walker, 367 A.2d 211 (N.H. 1976). “” Neither of the specified conditions has in fact occurred in regard to Lee Ann Walker but, effective June 3, 1973, the legislature enacted RSA 21:44 (Supp. 1975) and RSA 21-B:1 (Supp.”
In re T.J.S., 692 A.2d 498 (N.H. 1997). “from “fully develop[ing],” this State holds persons eighteen years of age and older to an adult standard of conduct, see RSA 21:44 (1988). Indeed, in some circumstances persons as young as thirteen may be held criminally responsible for their actions.”
Byrne v. Byrne, 418 A.2d 1267 (N.H. 1980). · cites it 2× “The issue in this divorce case is whether the trial court erred in holding that an order for support of a “minor child”, in accordance with a stipulation made when the age of majority was 21 years, is not terminated at 18 years by the subsequent enactment of RSA 21:44 (Supp.…”
Haight v. Petit, 435 A.2d 1132 (N.H. 1981). “RSA 21:44. We held that the original support order was unaffected by a reduction in the age of majority and that it referred to the age of majority at the time of the order.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.