N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. » N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. / Title lxiv / Chapter 677
New Hampshire Revised Statutes

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 677:6 (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
    677:6 Burden of Proof. – In an appeal to the court, the burden of proof shall be upon the party seeking to set aside any order or decision of the zoning board of adjustment or any decision of the local legislative body to show that the order or decision is unlawful or unreasonable. All findings of the zoning board of adjustment or the local legislative body upon all questions of fact properly before the court shall 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 persuaded by the balance of probabilities, on the evidence before it, that said order or decision is unreasonable.

Source. 1983, 447:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 112 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Kalil v. Town of Dummer Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 922 A.2d 672 (N.H. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kalil v. Town of Dummer Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 922 A.2d 672 (N.H. 2007). · cites it 5× “It could have conducted its review based upon the decision and record before it, see RSA 677:6 (1996), or it could have taken additional evidence, see RSA 677:10, :13 (1996); Robinson v.”
David F. Dietz & a. v. Town of Tuftonboro, 201 A.3d 65 (N.H. 2019). · cites it 2× “; see RSA 677:6 (2016). The trial court's review "is not to determine whether it agrees with the zoning board of adjustment's findings, but to determine whether there is evidence upon which they could have been reasonably based.”
Bayson Props., Inc. v. City of Lebanon, 834 A.2d 202 (N.H. 2003). · cites it 5× “Pursuant to RSA 677:6 all the Board’s findings are deemed prima facie lawful and reasonable.”
Simplex Tech., Inc. v. Town of Newington, 766 A.2d 713 (N.H. 2001). · cites it 2× “The trial court’s review is governed by RSA 677:6, which places the burden of proof on the party seeking to set aside a ZBA decision to show that the decision is unlawful or unreasonable.”
Golf Course Investors of NH, LLC v. Town of Jaffrey, 20 A.3d 846 (N.H. 2011). · cites it 5× “While the factual findings of the ZBA regarding standing are deemed prima facie lawful and reasonable, see RSA 677:6 (2008), the decision on standing may be subject to de novo review when the underlying facts are not in dispute.”
Dartmouth Corp. of Alpha Delta v. Town of Hanover, 159 A.3d 359 (N.H. 2017). · cites it 2× “RSA 677:6 (2016); see Lone Pine Hunters’ Club, 149 N.”
Chester Rod & Gun Club, Inc. v. Town of Chester, 883 A.2d 1034 (N.H. 2005). · cites it 2× “RSA 677:6 (1996). It “may set aside a ZBA decision if it finds by the balance of probabilities, based on the evidence before [it], that the ZBA’s decision was unreasonable.”
Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 8 A.3d 89 (N.H. 2010). · cites it 2× “RSA 677:6 provides in part that “[i]n an appeal to the court, the burden of proof shall be upon the party seeking to set aside any order or decision of the zoning board of adjustment.”
Healey v. New Durham Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 665 A.2d 360 (N.H. 1995). · cites it 2× “We uphold the trial court’s findings of fact unless (1) the trial court did not properly defer to the ZBA’s fact finding, see RSA 677:6 (1986), or (2) its findings are unsupported by the evidence, see Cohen, 134 N.”
Stephen E. Forster d/b/a Forster's Christmas Tree Farm & Gift Shoppe v. Town of Henniker, 167 N.H. 745 (N.H. 2015). · cites it 2× “; see RSA 677:6 (2008). We will uphold the superior court’s decision unless the evidence does not support it or it is legally erroneous.”
Batchelder v. Town of Plymouth Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 160 N.H. 253 (N.H. 2010). · cites it 2× “RSA 677:6 (2008). “It may set aside a ZBA decision if it finds by the balance of probabilities, based on the evidence before it, that the ZBA’s decision was unreasonable.”
Blagbrough Fam. Realty Trust v. a & T Forest Prods., Inc., 917 A.2d 1221 (N.H. 2007). “RSA 677:6 (1996). It may set aside a ZBA decision if it finds by the balance of probabilities, based upon the evidence before it, that the ZBA’s decision was unreasonable.”
Show all 112 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.