N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. » N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. / Title lv / Chapter 541
New Hampshire Revised Statutes

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 541:13 (2026)

Burden of Proof

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NH-GCgc.nh.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    541:13 Burden of Proof. – Upon the hearing the burden of proof shall be upon the party seeking to set aside any order or decision of the commission to show that the same is clearly unreasonable or unlawful, and all findings of the commission upon all questions of fact properly before it shall be deemed to be prima facie lawful and reasonable; and 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 such order is unjust or unreasonable.

Source. 1913, 145:18. PL 239:11. 1937, 107:24; 133:85. RL 414:13.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 526 cases (61 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case: Appeal of Conservation Law Found. of New England, Inc., 507 A.2d 652 (N.H. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Appeal of Conservation Law Found. of New England, Inc., 507 A.2d 652 (N.H. 1986). · cites it 9× “The scope of this court’s authority to review the commission’s methodology and its conclusions drawn from the evidence is limited by RSA 541:13, see RSA 365:21, and by the body of decisional law limiting the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions.”
Legislative Util. Consumers' Council v. Pub. Serv. Co., 402 A.2d 626 (N.H. 1979). · cites it 6× “” RSA 541:13. The LUCC’s appeal challenges the legality of the order and the validity of many of the commission findings, and asks that we conclude that “a clear preponderance of the evidence” before us demonstrates that the commission’s rulings and order were “unjust or…”
In re N.H. Elec. Coop., Inc., 164 A.3d 1013 (N.H. 2017). · cites it 5× “NHEC filed a motion for rehearing. The BTLA issued a written order denying NHEC's motion in September 2015.”
Appeal of Armaganian, 784 A.2d 1185 (N.H. 2001). · cites it 4× “See RSA 541:13 (1997); Appeal of Boulay, 142 N.”
Appeal of Town of Seabrook, 44 A.3d 518 (N.H. 2012). · cites it 3× “RSA 541:13 (2007); Appeal of Town of Rindge, 158 N.”
Appeal of Pub. Serv. Co. of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy, 165 A.3d 695 (N.H. 2017). · cites it 4× “Additionally, the BTLA reviewed the criticisms leveled at the assessment methodologies used by the municipal assessors, as well as the municipalities' responses to those criticisms, but it ruled that it need not address those points because challenges based on assessment…”
Appeal of Wilson, 20 A.3d 1006 (N.H. 2011). · cites it 3× “See RSA 541:13 (2007). The BTLA’s findings of fact are deemed prima facie lawful and reasonable.”
Appeal of Laconia Patrolman Ass'n, 62 A.3d 787 (N.H. 2013). · cites it 4× “In reviewing a decision of the PELRB, “[w]e adhere to the standard of review set forth in RSA 541:13 (2007).” Appeal of Town of Deerfield, 162 N.”
Appeal of Concerned Corporators of the Portsmouth Sav. Bank, 525 A.2d 671 (N.H. 1987). · cites it 3× “(Amoskeag) a windfall and thereby violating the Bank’s charter; that the board erroneously failed to examine whether Portsmouth’s trustees had fulfilled their fiduciary obligations to depositors; and that the lack of information on the alternative of a stand-alone conversion…”
Appeal of Cote, 660 A.2d 1090 (N.H. 1995). · cites it 3× “2d at 248 ; see RSA 541:13 (1974). The claimant proved legal causation.”
Appeal of Pennichuck Water Works, Inc., 992 A.2d 740 (N.H. 2010). · cites it 2× “Standard of Review A party seeking to set aside an order of the PUC has the burden of demonstrating that the order is contrary to law or, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, that the order is unjust or unreasonable.”
Univ. Sys. v. State, 369 A.2d 1139 (N.H. 1977). · cites it 4× “The AAUP also filed a motion to dismiss these appeals on the grounds that the PELRB’s determination was not a final order within the meaning of RSA 273-A: 14 (Supp.”
Show all 526 citing cases →
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.