Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Patricia Kalar petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge the reduction of her benefits by Respondent New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services. The Department conducted an inquiry into Petitioner's income and expenses as part of a mandatory, periodic "recertification" process for determining Petitioner's food stamp benefits. At the last inquiry, the Department determined that Petitioner's food stamp benefit should be reduced. Petitioner argued on appeal that the Department erred in its calculation that served as the basis of its reduction determination. Upon review, the Supreme Court could not conclude that the reduction in Petitioner's benefits was due to miscalculations by the Department. The Court affirmed the Department's decision. View "In re Kalar" on Justia Law

Petitioner Erica Tapply appealed a trial court's order that denied her motion for judicial disqualification. The issue on appeal was whether the trial judge who presided over this contentious dispute concerning the parenting rights of Respondent Benjamin Zukatis erred by not granting Petitioner's repeated requests to recuse himself. Upon review of the trial judge's order on Petitioner's motion for disqualification, the Supreme Court concluded that the lower court applied the correct standards in denying the motion. The Court noted that the trial court found that "under all circumstances, the court [was] convinced that an objective, disinterested observer, fully informed of the facts, would not entertain significant doubt as to the court's impartiality or its ability to do justice in this case." Because the trial judge applied the correct standards in reviewing Petitioner's motion, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed the lower court's decision. View "In re Tapply & Zukatis" on Justia Law

Appellants Campaign for Ratepayers' Rights, Conservation Law Foundation, Freedom Logistics, Halifax-American Energy Co, TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Union of Concerned Scientists and Jackson Perry appealed orders of the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee that denied their motion for declaratory judgment. This case involved the installation of a wet flue gas desulphurization system (also known as a "scrubber") at a electricity generating facility in Bow owned by Appellee Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH). Appellants sought a declaratory judgment from the Committee to determine whether the Committee had jurisdiction over modifications to the scrubber. Any modification would have constituted a 'sizable addition' to the existing substation facility in violation of state environmental law. Appellants argued that the Committee made a number of errors that lead to an erroneous ruling that the scrubber project was not sizable enough to implicate the law. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Committee lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide whether the scrubber was sizable enough. The Court vacated the Committee's decision. View "Appeal of Campaign for Ratepayers' Rights" on Justia Law

Petitioner James Margeson appealed a decision of the New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board (CAB) that denied him reimbursement for medical treatment and workers' compensation benefits. Petitioner conducted a "bed check" at a state youth center when he twisted his knee. The Center contended that Petitioner's injury was precipitated by a pre-existing war wound. The CAB rejected the Center's version of Petitioner's injury. However, the CAB did not award Petitioner reimbursement, finding that Petitioner "did not encounter any greater risk of his employment than in his everyday life and the stairs were merely an incident or an occasion that accompanied the injury." The CAB denied Petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the parties agreed that Petitioner was injured at work. The parties disputed whether his injury arose out of his employment. The Court adopted an "increased-risk" test for injuries attributable to neutral risks such as the unexplained fall at issue in this case: "the injury must actually result from the hazards of employment and not merely from the bare existence of employment." The Court reversed and remanded the CAB's decision to make specific findings as to whether Petitioner's injury was a "neutral risk" and if so, that record reflects the medical and legal causation of the injury. View "Appeal of Margeson" on Justia Law

Defendant Anthony Kay appealed a superior court decision that found he violated his probation and imposed jail time. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by finding he violated his probation and that the violation was based on his failure to pay child support. In 2008, Defendant pled guilty to two felony counts of failing to pay child support. At the time of sentencing, he owed nearly $70,000 in two separate support cases. The superior court sentenced Defendant to two concurrent terms of two to five years at the state prison and placed him on probation. He was ordered to make weekly payments and he did while he was employed. Defendant admitted that he stopped reporting to his probation officer after he became unemployed and that he never sought to modify his support payments at any time. Upon review of the record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "New Hampshire v. Kay" on Justia Law

Petitioner Winecellar Farm ("Winecellar") appealed a superior court order that found it was not entitled to: (1) a decree pro confesso awarding it specific performance to purchase the Bedard Farm ("Bedard"); (2) specific performance to purchase the farm under the part performance doctrine; and (3) continued haying in perpetuity under a lease agreement. Craig and Jennifer Rief purchased Winecellar, a working farm adjacent to the Bedard Farm. Bedard was owned by two siblings who until 2006, had lived there all their lives. The Riefs had enjoyed a close, friendly relationship with the Bedards until the Bedards died in 2006. The Riefs informed the Bedards on multiple occasions of their interest in buying the Bedard Farm when the Bedards were ready to sell. Until that time, the Riefs were content with farming the two properties together. In 2004, the Riefs and the Bedards signed a "memorandum of understanding" to harvest hay. In exchange, Winecellar/Riefs would maintain certain access ways and roadways to a shared driveway. In 2004, the Riefs wanted to lease the Bedard land to raise a small herd of buffalo to which the Bedards declined. In January 2006, the Bedards acquiesced to the Riefs' proposal to lease the land for buffalo. They drafted a "letter of understanding" for which the Riefs would lease the land, and later be given the opportunity to purchase the land should the Bedards sell. When the Bedards died, the land passed to their family. The Riefs filed a preliminary injunction in an attempt to preclude the Bedards' estate from evicting its buffalo and removing fencing equipment maintained on two leased pastures. Although the Bedard heirs filed responses in the case, their answer was untimely. The Riefs moved for a decree pro confesso for the right to purchase the Bedard land. The trial court denied the motion, but ordered a voluntary nonsuit as to the Bedard estate. On appeal, the Riefs argued that the sum of the various memoranda/letters of understanding constituted contracts for which specific performance was the only remedy. According to the Riefs, the monthly lease payments were in consideration for the right to purchase the land. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the record adequately supported the trial court's decisions to deny the Riefs specific performance for the Bedard Farm. Additionally, the Court found that the haying arrangement between the parties was not sufficient to constitute an "interest in land" consistent with "the ultimate intent that Winecellar Farm would own the Bedard Farm." As such, the Court affirmed the lower court's decisions. View "Winecellar Farm, Inc. v. Hibbard" on Justia Law

The Appellants, maternal grandparents of “Athena D.,” appealed an order of the probate court that dismissed their petition for grandparent visitation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also denied their motion to stay the adoption of Athena while they pursued their petition for visitation and denied their request to order the child’s adoptive parents to allow their continued visitation. The Division for Children, Youth and Families initial plan was for the grandparents to adopt Athena; however, for various reasons, they withdrew from consideration. The court then found that it was in the best interest of Athena to deny the grandparents’ petition. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined the probate court indeed lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear their appeal. The Court found that the probate court’s conclusion to place the child with her eventual adoptive family was not an unsustainable exercise of discretion. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the probate court’s decision. View "In Re Athena D." on Justia Law

Petitioner Harold French appealed a decision of the New Hampshire Board of Auctioneers (Board) that sanctioned him for submitting a fictitious bid at an auction. In 2009, Petitioner attended an auction run by another auctioneer and registered as a bidder under his own name. Of the items for sale, Petitioner asked the auctioneer about a particular painting that had a set reserve price of $10,000. When the bid reached $9,000, Petitioner bid $9,500. He later testified before the Board that he did not intend to purchase the painting, but sought to protect the reserve and ensure the painting was sold. No one else bid on the painting. The owner believed he had waived the reserve when he had gestured to the auctioneer following Petitioner’s bid. The owner subsequently requested payment for the painting from Petitioner. However, the auctioneer told the owner that the painting did not sell because the reserve was not met. The owner filed a complaint with the Board, and the Board subsequently issued its sanction against Petitioner. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the evidence presented against Petitioner supported the Board’s findings and sanction. The Court affirmed the Board’s decision. View "Appeal of Harold French" on Justia Law

Defendant Alicia Prentice appealed a district court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiff Phyllis Buatti. Defendant rented an apartment from Defendant. In September 2010, Defendant was served with a demand for rent alleging that the rent was three months in arrears. Subsequently, Defendant was served with a “notice to quit” requiring her to vacate the premises unless the rent was paid. Defendant’s argument on appeal to the Supreme Court was that the demand for rent exceeded the amount of back rent that was actually owed. Upon review, the Court found that the demand for rent exceeded the amount on the landlord’s "notice to quit." The trial court specifically found that neither party was able to prove the amount of the arrearage — the court simply found that an unspecified amount of rent had not been paid as required. The Supreme Court held that because the Plaintiff did not prove the actual amount in arrearage, the judgment in her favor should be reversed. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Buatti v. Prentice" on Justia Law

Respondents North of the Border Tobacco, LLC (Tobacco) and Roll Your Own, LLC (RYO) appealed decisions of the Superior Court that enjoined them from allowing customers to use on-site cigarette-making machines to make rolled cigarettes with loose tobacco unless they make required escrow payments as required by law. An escrow fund was set up by the state to share the burden from damages for smoking-related health care costs. Respondents own tobacco shops that sell various tobacco products. At some point, for a rental fee, cigarette-making machines were installed for on-site customer use. The State filed suit in 2009 and sought an injunction against Respondents to stop selling or rolling cigarettes until they paid into the fund. Tobacco denied that it manufactured cigarettes and argued that it did not have to contribute to the fund. The trial court disagreed and issued the injunction. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to issue the injunction against Tobacco. However, the Court vacated the trial court's decision against RYO, holding that a preliminary injunction was premature prior to resolving several constitutional issues pertaining to RYO's business operations. Accordingly, the Court affirmed part, reversed part of the trial court's ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire v. North of the Border Tobacco, LLC" on Justia Law