New Hampshire Revised Statutes
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 263:75 (2026)
Appeal; Administrative License Suspension
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NH-GCgc.nh.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
263:75 Appeal; Administrative License Suspension. –
I. If the suspension is sustained after a hearing as provided in RSA 265:91-b, a person shall have the right to file a petition in the superior court in the county in which he was arrested to review the final order by the director or his authorized agent within 30 days of the date of the final order. Jurisdiction to hear such appeals is vested in the superior court.
II. At the earliest practical time, the court shall review the record as developed before the director or authorized agent, together with any written legal argument presented to the court. Based on that review, the court may affirm or reverse the decision of the director or agent or order that oral argument be held. As justice may require, the court may remand the case to the director or authorized agent for further findings or rulings. In no event shall the oral argument be held less than 14 days after notice has been provided to the director. The petition for appeal shall set forth all the grounds upon which the final order is sought to be overturned. Issues not raised by the appellant before the director or agent shall not be raised before the superior court. The burden of proof shall be upon the appellant to show that the decision of the director or agent was clearly unreasonable or unlawful, and all findings of the director or agent upon all questions of fact properly before him shall be deemed to be prima facie lawful and reasonable. The order or decision appealed from shall not be set aside or vacated except for errors of law, unless the court is satisfied, by a clear preponderance of the evidence before it, that the order is unjust or unreasonable.
III. No new or additional evidence shall be introduced in the superior court, but the case shall be determined upon the record and evidence transferred, except that in any case, if it shall be necessary in order that no party shall be deprived of any constitutional right, or if the court shall be of the opinion that justice requires the reception of evidence of facts which have occurred since the hearing, or which by reason of accident, mistake, or misfortune could not have been offered before the director or authorized agent, it shall remand the case to the director or authorized agent to receive and consider such additional evidence.
I. If the suspension is sustained after a hearing as provided in RSA 265:91-b, a person shall have the right to file a petition in the superior court in the county in which he was arrested to review the final order by the director or his authorized agent within 30 days of the date of the final order. Jurisdiction to hear such appeals is vested in the superior court.
II. At the earliest practical time, the court shall review the record as developed before the director or authorized agent, together with any written legal argument presented to the court. Based on that review, the court may affirm or reverse the decision of the director or agent or order that oral argument be held. As justice may require, the court may remand the case to the director or authorized agent for further findings or rulings. In no event shall the oral argument be held less than 14 days after notice has been provided to the director. The petition for appeal shall set forth all the grounds upon which the final order is sought to be overturned. Issues not raised by the appellant before the director or agent shall not be raised before the superior court. The burden of proof shall be upon the appellant to show that the decision of the director or agent was clearly unreasonable or unlawful, and all findings of the director or agent upon all questions of fact properly before him shall be deemed to be prima facie lawful and reasonable. The order or decision appealed from shall not be set aside or vacated except for errors of law, unless the court is satisfied, by a clear preponderance of the evidence before it, that the order is unjust or unreasonable.
III. No new or additional evidence shall be introduced in the superior court, but the case shall be determined upon the record and evidence transferred, except that in any case, if it shall be necessary in order that no party shall be deprived of any constitutional right, or if the court shall be of the opinion that justice requires the reception of evidence of facts which have occurred since the hearing, or which by reason of accident, mistake, or misfortune could not have been offered before the director or authorized agent, it shall remand the case to the director or authorized agent to receive and consider such additional evidence.
Source. RSA 262-A:69-g. 1965, 238:1. 1981, 146:1. 1985, 162:1. 1992, 258:1. 1994, 347:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1995.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1989–2015 · leading case: Bragg v. Dir., New Hampshire Div. of Motor Vehs., 690 A.2d 571 (N.H. 1997).
Bragg v. Dir., New Hampshire Div. of Motor Vehs., 690 A.2d 571 (N.H. 1997). “See RSA 263:75 (Supp. 1996). The plaintiff *678 learned on July 17, 1995, that the superior court’s record review of the DMV decision would begin after November 4, 1995, approximately two weeks after his license was scheduled to be restored.”
Jacobs v. Dir., N.H. Div. of Motor Vehs., 823 A.2d 752 (N.H. 2003). “Pursuant to RSA 263:75,1 (Supp. 2002), Jacobs appealed this decision to the superior court.”
Asmussen v. Comm'r, New Hampshire Dep't of Saf., 766 A.2d 678 (N.H. 2000). “1999)); RSA 263:75 (1993) (amended 1995), and he advised them that legislation was pending to provide for record review in the superior court, see RSA.”
Saviano v. Dir., N.H. Div. of Motor Vehs., 855 A.2d 1278 (N.H. 2004). “e the modified ALS form, read to him while he was in custody for disobeying a police officer, as opposed to driving under the influence, was inaccurate, misleading and prejudicial; (3) the use of the PBT result at the ALS hearing violated his due process rights; and (4) the…”
Welch v. Dir., Div. of Motor Vehs., 662 A.2d 292 (N.H. 1995). “The plaintiff appealed the revocation to the superior court, see RSA 263:75 (1993) (amended 1994) and RSA 265:91-d (1993) (amended 1993), and moved to dismiss the license revocation, alleging that the State trooper who arrested him acted without authority under RSA 106-B:15…”
Lopez v. Dir., New Hampshire Div. of Motor Vehs., 761 A.2d 448 (N.H. 2000). “See RSA 263:75, II (Supp. 1999). There was no real dispute about the plaintiff’s operation of the vehicle or his impaired status.”
Zyla v. Turner, 590 A.2d 618 (N.H. 1991). “The plaintiff appealed the division’s determination to the superior court under RSA 263:75, and the de novo hearing on that appeal resulted in the order appealed to this court.”
Kerouac v. Dir., N.H. Div. of Motor Vehs., 965 A.2d 1111 (N.H. 2009). “at 351 ; RSA 263:75, II (2004). The superior court may not set aside or vacate the decision appealed from unless it “is satisfied, by a clear preponderance of the evidence before it, that such order is unjust or unreasonable.”
Proulx v. Dir., New Hampshire Div. of Motor Vehs., 910 A.2d 1208 (N.H. 2006). “In an appeal to the superior court from an ALS decision, the plaintiff has the burden to show that the order was clearly unreasonable or unlawful, and all findings of fact on questions properly before the hearings officer are deemed to be prim,a facie lawful and reasonable.”
Jordan v. State, 561 A.2d 1078 (N.H. 1989). “See RSA 263:75 (Supp. 1988). The only issue before the court was whether the plaintiff’s eructations constituted a refusal to take the breath-alcohol test under RSA 265:92 (Supp.”
Appeal of the State, 736 A.2d 1242 (N.H. 1999). “See RSA 263:75, I (“If the suspension is sustained after a hearing”), :76 (1993) (“Any person whose license has been suspended or revoked”); RSA 265:91-b, 1(a) (“Any person whose license is suspended or revoked”).”
Wensley v. Dir., Div. of Motor Vehs., 669 A.2d 219 (N.H. 1995). “See RSA 263:75 (1993) (amended 1994); RSA 265:91-d (Supp.”
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.