Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Matthew Blunt appealed a circuit court order that denied his motion to strike the imposition of class A misdemeanor sentences following his conviction of simple assault and resisting arrest. On appeal to the Supreme Court, defendant argued that the trial court's sentences were unlawful because the complaints under which he was convicted alleged only class B misdemeanors. Specifically, he contended that the trial court was required to treat both complaints as alleging class B misdemeanors because: (1) neither complaint alleged a crime that involved as an element an act of violence or a threat of violence; and (2) the State did not file notice of its intent to seek class A penalties on or before the date of his arraignment on a form approved for this purpose by the judicial branch administrative council. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that neither the simple assault complaint nor the resisting arrest complaint required that an act of violence be involved as an element of the offense. Furthermore, the Court held that merely checking the "class A misdemeanor" box on the standard complaint form did not constitute compliance with statute, and that defendant's two convictions were actually class B misdemeanors. Accordingly, the Court vacated the sentences imposed and remanded the case back to the district division for resentencing. View "New Hampshire v. Blunt" on Justia Law

Defendants Stryker Biotech, LLC, Stryker Sales Corporation (collectively Stryker) and Turner Construction Company, appealed a superior court ruling which found them liable on a theory of unjust enrichment and awarded damages to the plaintiff, Axenics, Inc. f/k/a RenTec Corporation. Axenics cross-appealed, challenging the amount of damages awarded and the trial court's failure to find the defendants liable on its breach of contract and New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claims. This case arose from the construction of a biotech facility for Stryker for which Turner served as the general contractor. Axenics subcontracted with Turner to furnish labor, materials, equipment, and services for the installation of "process pipe" at the facility. A dispute arose when Axenics notified Turner of additional change orders related to delays and work that it believed to be outside the scope of the contract. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the subcontract addressed the subject matter of Axenics' unjust enrichment claim. The Court reversed the trial court's decision finding Turner liable to Axenics on its theory of unjust enrichment. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that Stryker accepted a benefit that would be unconscionable to retain. Therefore the Court held that the trial court erred in allowing Axenics to recover against Stryker under a theory of unjust enrichment. The Court found that an internal memorandum was admitted into evidence in error; the trial court erred in relying upon it in assessing damages. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision with respect to Axenics' CPA claims. The case was ultimately affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Axenics, Inc. v. Turner Construction Co." on Justia Law

Defendant Ryan Martin appealed a superior court ruling that sentenced him to both a stand-committed prison term of one to three years and probation for two years. Finding no error nor abuse of discretion in the superior court's sentence, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's ultimate sentence. View "New Hampshire v. Martin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Mark Case appealed a superior court order that granted summary judgment to defendant St. Mary's Bank and denied his cross-motion for summary judgment on his claims that the bank engaged in trespass and violated state law and the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The matter arose from the bank's foreclosure on property Plaintiff leased from his landlord, Jean Marcelin. Months before the foreclosure sale, pipes burst in an apartment above plaintiff's, causing a flood. The City of Manchester turned off water and electricity to the building. Plaintiff spoke about the problem to Marcelin, who denied that he still owned the property. Plaintiff then spoke about the problem to a Bank representative; the representative asked plaintiff to allow her, a plumber, and an electrician into the building. The plaintiff complied with this request. The City placed a legal notice on the property’s front door, stating that it was unsafe and prohibiting occupancy. Plaintiff had not resided at the property since the flood, though most of his possessions remained at the property. When the Bank allowed him access to the apartment to remove his possessions, plaintiff observed that his apartment door was "wide open" and subsequently alleged that many of his possessions were missing. Finding no error with the superior court order, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision. View "Case v. St. Mary's Bank " on Justia Law

Defendant Nicholas Trebian was convicted by jury of possessing marijuana with the intent to sell, and possession of a controlled drug (ecstasy). On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the ecstasy possession charge. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed defendant's conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Trebian " on Justia Law

Defendant Amato Russo appealed his conviction by jury on two counts of theft by deception and two alternative counts of theft by unauthorized taking. He argued on appeal that the superior court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial and by allowing standby counsel to participate in the trial. Further, he argued that the court erred when it imposed an extended prison term. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court. View "New Hampshire v. Russo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Paul Sangedolce appealed a superior court decision that granted defendant Telegraph Publishing Company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff, an inmate in state prison, sued the newspaper run by defendant Telegraph for defamation. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that an article written by Andrew Wolfe stated that plaintiff, as an accomplice to Peter Gibbs in a robbery and home invasion, "testified against" Gibbs in Gibbs' trial. In fact, the plaintiff did not testify against Gibbs. The Telegraph moved to dismiss, arguing that the complained-of statement "is not considered defamatory as a matter of law." Plaintiff moved to amend the writ to include a separate cause of action for negligence. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and denied the motion to amend. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the untrue statement that plaintiff testified against his criminal associate could not be reasonably construed as defamatory. However, the Court disagreed with the trial court's reason to dismiss plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint, and remanded the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings. View "Sanguedolce v. Wolfe " on Justia Law

Defendant Scott Schultz appealed a circuit court order that denied his motion to dismiss and one that granted judgment to plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank in an action for possession of real estate. Defendant was notified that the bank would foreclose on his property in 2009. He did not act to enjoin the foreclosure. The sale took place May 2011. A month later, Defendant was served with an eviction notice. A month after the eviction, the bank filed a possessory action. Defendant moved to dismiss that action, arguing that plaintiff's possessor right was based on two prior assignments that were fatally defective "if not fraudulent." The trial court denied defendant's motion. Finding no error with the circuit court order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz " on Justia Law

Petitioner Eric Johnson appealed a New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) decision finding insufficient evidence to support his claim that Respondent New Hampshire Troopers Association (Union) breached its duty of fair representation. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that there was insufficient evidence to support Petitioner's claim, and affirmed the PELRB's decision. View "Appeal of Eric Johnson " on Justia Law

Respondent Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company appealed a superior court order that found Petitioner Great American Dining, Inc (GAD) was an additional insured under a Philadelphia policy. The dispute arose from a slip-and-fall injury in 2008 whereby the injured party sued DW Ray Commons, LLC, who owned and leased a building to Webster Place Center, Inc. DW Ray required Webster Place to obtain an insurance policy listing DW Ray as an additional insured. The commercial general liability policy contained a provision listing as an additional insured "any person or organization with respect to their liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use o that part of the premises leased or rented…" When DW Ray and Webster Place were sued for damages and settled with the injured party. That party then sued GAD for contribution on the theory that GAD constructed, installed and maintained the premises under the policy. GAD then sought a declaration that it too was an additional party under the DW Ray policy. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed GAD was an additional party and upheld the superior court's judgment. View "Great American Dining, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company " on Justia Law