Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In the summer of 2008, defendant Eli and Bessie Cohen Foundation, doing business as Cohen Camps, hired Michael Feld to serve as a counselor at Camp Tel Noar on Sunset Lake in Hampstead, as it had done the previous summer. Prior to employing him each summer, defendant performed a criminal background check on Feld, and each time his record was clear. During the beginning of his second summer at the camp, other counselors noticed a change in Feld's personality from the prior year, including that he was more outgoing and eccentric, and that he behaved inappropriately at times. Feld has suffered from bipolar disorder for years. Feld's father spoke with the camp director and informed him that Feld could become "manic" and should be taking his medication. On the evening of July 6, Feld and a group of counselors went to a doughnut shop. While there, Feld became increasingly agitated, expressed a desire to return to the camp, and began throwing away the other counselors' unfinished food and drinks in an attempt to compel them to leave. Upon their return to the camp around midnight, Feld’s roommate reported Feld’s behavior to the boys' head counselor. Feld and his roommate then conversed with one another in their room for several hours, during which time Feld’s behavior became increasingly erratic and he demonstrated mood swings, paranoid thoughts, and delusions of grandeur. At approximately 5:00 a.m., Feld forced his way into a private residence immediately adjacent to the camp. The homeowner's wife telephoned the police and Feld ran from the premises. Plaintiff Kathleen Boulter, a Hampstead police officer, was dispatched "to detain, question and/or arrest the suspect as a result of his alleged conduct, and to investigate the home invasion complaint." As the plaintiff was interviewing the homeowner, they observed Feld running down the road naked. Plaintiff ran after Feld, repeatedly telling him to "get down on the ground." When Feld charged at her, plaintiff discharged her taser, but Feld tackled her and began to strangle her, nearly causing her to lose consciousness. The homeowner knocked Feld off plaintiff and plaintiff locked herself and the homeowner in her police cruiser to wait for backup. Feld was subsequently apprehended following a struggle with the plaintiff and two other officers who had been called to the scene. Plaintiff sued defendant and Feld to recover for injuries she suffered as she was attempting to arrest Feld, alleging negligent, reckless, and intentional misconduct. All four of the counts in her writ that pertained to defendant were based upon the assertion that defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care. According to plaintiff, "as a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the negligence of the Defendant, . . . [she] sustained painful, serious and permanent injuries." Because the injury giving rise to plaintiff's negligence claims directly arose from the alleged "negligent conduct which created the particular occasion for [her] official engagement," the Supreme Court concluded that such claims were barred by the Firefighter's Rule. View "Boulter v. Eli & Bessie Cohen Foundation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kenneth England appealed a Superior Court order that dismissed his negligence action against defendant Maria Brianas. For several months in 2009, defendant and Allen Bryson had an intimate relationship, which ended when Bryson moved out of state. After Bryson returned to New Hampshire in 2010, he contacted defendant several times, attempting to resume their relationship; he "became enraged" when she refused. Although the defendant told Bryson that she did not believe that they were "compatible," he nevertheless persisted in an abrasive and angry manner. Plaintiff and defendant met during the summer of 2008 and later began socializing and communicating through text messages. Defendant never told plaintiff about her relationship with Bryson or his behavior after he returned to New Hampshire. On February 13, 2010, while they were together at the Eagles Club, defendant invited plaintiff to spend the night at her house. Both were unaware that Bryson had broken into defendant's house through the basement and was waiting for her to return home. When plaintiff left defendant's living room to get a drink in the kitchen, Bryson stabbed him multiple times, causing serious injuries. Plaintiff argued that the trial court should have found that special circumstances existed that would support a finding of a legal duty owed to him by defendant and, therefore, should have denied defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant countered that the trial court was correct in granting her motion to dismiss because plaintiff's writ of summons did not allege special circumstances or a special relationship sufficient to impose a duty to warn or protect plaintiff from Bryson's assault. "[C]lose friends, neighbors and extended family [would] find themselves at risk of civil liability for situations they did not create and over which they exercise no control." Because the Supreme Court concluded that defendant did not owe plaintiff a duty to warn him "that she had a potentially dangerous stalker who had been harassing her," the Court upheld the Superior Court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss. View "England v. Brianas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Diana Martinez (formerly Camire), appealed a Superior Court order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant The Gunstock Area Commission, on claims for damages for negligence and recklessness. Plaintiff, a snowboarder, visited Gunstock's ski and snowboard area. Posted on the wall of the ticket kiosk was a thirty-five inch by forty inch sign that recited, in part the language of RSA 225-A:24 and also stated: "By purchasing and/or affixing a ticket to use our facilities, you are agreeing to accept, as a matter of law, all inherent risks of winter sports activities and agree not to sue Gunstock for NEGLIGENCE or any other legal claim." In addition, the back of the lift ticket purchased by plaintiff included language stating that, as a condition of using the ski area, the purchaser or user of the ticket agreed to release Gunstock, and its employees and agents from any legal liability, including, but not limited to, claims for negligence. Plaintiff was injured when she was snowboarding on a ski trail and another snowboarder struck her from behind. The snowboarder was employed by Gunstock during the 2009-2010 season as a snowboard instructor. At the time of the collision, he was snowboarding prior to his scheduled 11:45 a.m. "lineup" in anticipation of a 12:00 p.m. lesson. Plaintiff sued Gunstock, asserting three counts based upon vicarious liability for the instructor's alleged negligent and reckless conduct, and one count alleging that Gunstock was directly liable for negligently hiring, training, and supervising the instructor. The trial court granted Gunstock's motion for summary judgment on all of the claims. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by determining that the liability releases barred her claims "in the absence of some evidence that [she] expressly agreed to [the] exculpatory language." She also contended that the trial court erred in finding that, as a matter of law, the instructor was not in Gunstock's employ at the time of the collision. She further asserted RSA 225-A:24, I, "[did] not bar recovery for [a ski area] operator's negligent supervision of its employees and the negligence of its agents in violation of their duties as employees." The Supreme Court concluded after review that RSA 225-A:24, I, barred plaintiff's vicarious liability claims as a matter of law, and that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Gunstock on those claims. In light of this holding, we need not decide whether the instructor was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the collision or whether the claims are also barred by Gunstock's liability releases. View "Camire v. Gunstock Area Commission" on Justia Law

This case involved a petition for injunctive and declaratory relief brought by plaintiffs Harbor Homes, Inc. and Gary Dube, Thomas Taylor, Cynthia Washington, and Arthur Furber against defendants the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Commissioner of DHHS, the Associate Commissioner of DHHS, and the Administrator of the Bureau of Behavioral Health seeking, in part, to enjoin DHHS from denying the individual plaintiffs the right to obtain Medicaid-funded services from their chosen provider, Harbor Homes. The individual plaintiffs received Medicaid-funded rehabilitative services from Harbor Homes. Since 1991, Harbor Homes participated in New Hampshire's Medicaid program pursuant to a Medicaid Provider Enrollment Agreement. On June 23, 2008, Harbor Homes entered into an interagency agreement (IAA) with a community mental health program, Community Council of Nashua, NH, now known as Greater Nashua Mental Health Center (GNMHC), which authorized Harbor Homes to provide certain Medicaid-funded rehabilitative services to GNMHC patients. In February 2011, Harbor Homes learned that GNMHC did not intend to renew its IAA and that the Medicaid reimbursable services provided by Harbor Homes would be transitioned to GNMHC. This was done pursuant to Administrative Rule He-M 426.04(a)(2), which meant that Harbor Homes would no longer have an IAA with a community mental health provider, and it would no longer be permitted to provide Medicaid funded mental health services to approximately one hundred and forty of its clients, including the individual plaintiffs in this case. Plaintiffs filed a petition for injunctive and declaratory relief, seeking a court order enjoining DHHS from "terminating or limiting Harbor Homes' status as a qualified Medicaid provider" and to direct the State to allow the individual plaintiffs to obtain community mental health services from Harbor Homes, the provider of their choice. Following two hearings, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. Thereafter, all parties moved for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claim that DHHS's reliance upon the IAA requirement as a reason to terminate Harbor Homes' status as a qualified Medicaid provider was improper because the requirement was invalid both on its face and as applied in this case. Plaintiffs appealed rulings of the Superior Court that denied their summary judgment motions and granting the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment on two counts in the plaintiffs' petition. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's ruling that New Hampshire Administrative Rules, He-M 426.04(a)(2) did not violate the federal Medicaid Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Dube v. New Hampshire Dept. of Health & Human Svcs." on Justia Law

Petitioner, the Coos County Commissioners (collectively CCC), on behalf of the unincorporated places of Dixville and Millsfield, appealed a New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) decision which denied the CCC's motion to reconsider and revise downward respondent's, the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration (DRA), 2012 equalized valuations of Dixville and Millsfield because the CCC did not show that the valuations were unreasonable and disproportionate. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a rehearing. The CCC argued that: (1) the DRA's assessed value of the property, Windpark, was greater than its fair market value and, therefore, the DRA's equalized valuations for Millsfield and Dixville were disproportionate and unreasonable; (2) the BTLA erred by denying its motions to compel production of the Windpark appraisal and to continue the hearing, and by not allowing the CCC's expert witness to testify during the hearing; and (3) the DRA should have been estopped from denying the accuracy of the $113 million PILOT valuation. The Supreme Court concluded after review that the BTLA's determination that it was proper for the DRA to use the utility tax appraisal in performing its statutory duties under RSA 21-J:3, XIII was reasonable, particularly given that neither unincorporated place had fulfilled its own statutory duty to appraise the Windpark for property tax purposes, and that the DRA was statutorily obligated to conduct a utility tax appraisal. The Court agreed with the CCC that the BTLA erred in denying their motion to compel production of the DRA's utility tax appraisal of the Windpark. For those reasons, the BTLA erred in denying the CCC's motion to compel disclosure of the Windpark's utility tax appraisal: "While we agree that the CCC had the burden to prove at the hearing that the equalized valuations were disproportionate and unjust, we find that the BTLA's refusal to compel disclosure of the Windpark appraisal prevented the CCC from having a fair opportunity to meet this burden. Accordingly, we conclude that the CCC did not receive a fair hearing before the BTLA, as it did not have an opportunity to present evidence to challenge or otherwise discredit the valuation arrived at on the utility tax appraisal." The BTLA found that "[n]othing in the minutes of the December, 2007 meeting or anything that occurred thereafter indicates an express or implied promise by the DRA that the Windpark would be valued at any fixed and unchanging amount (such as $113 million) for any purpose or length of time." The BTLA's decision was supported by the evidence, and accordingly the BTLA did not err in finding that this statement could not reasonably have been relied upon by the CCC as a commitment by the DRA that $113 million would be the true market value of the Windpark. Accordingly, the BTLA did not err in rejecting this argument. View "Appeal of Coos County Commissioners" on Justia Law

Defendant David Fischer appealed his convictions on two counts of second degree assault, both of which resulted in extended terms of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the trial court erred in admitting testimony under the "excited utterance" hearsay exception; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (3) the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury on "extreme indifference to the value of human life;" (4) that the trial court violated his rights against double jeopardy by sentencing him on both second degree assault convictions; (5) the trial court erred in imposing extended prison terms; and (6) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on unanimously finding "specific bodily injury." Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Fischer" on Justia Law

Effective July 1, 2009, the New Hampshire Legislature imposed a ten percent tax on gambling winnings (Gambling Winnings Tax). The Gambling Winnings Tax was repealed effective May 23, 2011. The repeal was not retroactive, meaning that the tax was assessed on gambling winnings between July 1, 2009, and May 22, 2011. Petitioner Leonard Willey was a New Hampshire resident who, for the three years preceding the filing of this action, derived almost all of his earned income from gambling. For the 2009 tax year, he owed no federal income tax because his gambling losses exceeded his winnings. Petitioner David Eby was not an original party to this action, but was added as a substitute party later in the case. He was a New Hampshire resident who, in May 2011, purchased a scratch ticket and won ten dollars on the ticket, and was required to pay one dollar under the Gambling Winnings Tax as a result. This class action was filed in 2010, by putative class representatives Dean Leighton and Leighton Family Enterprises, LLC and Willey. Petitioners sought a declaratory judgment that the Gambling Winnings Tax was illegal and unconstitutional on its face, as applied to pre-enactment lottery winners receiving their winnings through annuities, and as applied to professional gamblers, as well as a refund of all such taxes collected or withheld. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the State and dismissed petitioners' motion for summary judgment and remaining claims challenging the constitutionality of the state's tax on gambling winnings. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court: the Court disagreed with petitioners that a tax on gross gambling winnings was inherently “unfair, unreasonable, and disproportional” under the New Hampshire constitution. Because petitioners could not show that they suffered harm under the Commerce Clause, were professional gamblers, or were gambling winnings annuity recipients, they did not suffer the same injury as the members of the subclasses they claimed to represent, and thus they did not demonstrate their entitlement to act as class representatives for the members of those subclasses. The Gambling Winnings Tax neither lacked uniformity nor was disproportional and unreasonable; and petitioners lacked standing to bring their remaining challenges to the tax. View "Eby v. New Hampshire" on Justia Law

Defendant Jamie Locke appealed her conviction by jury for second degree assault. She argued on appeal that because in her first trial the jury acquitted her of first degree assault, retrying her for second degree assault violated her State and Federal constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy. Alternatively, she argued that the State should have been required to join in one trial all charges arising from the same criminal episode. The Supreme Court took the opportunity of this case to adopt such a rule of compulsory joinder of criminal charges and reversed. View "New Hampshire v. Locke" on Justia Law

Respondent, Cory Lounder appealed a superior court order denying his petition to modify child support. He argued that the trial court erred by concluding that his incarcerated status made him ineligible for a reduction in support. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case for further consideration. "Because incarceration may cause a substantial change of circumstances sufficient to warrant modification, the trial court must consider incarceration when determining whether to modify a child support order. This does not, however, preclude a court from determining that a parent has remaining sources of income such that modification is unwarranted." There was no evidence in the record from which the trial court could have found that respondent was voluntarily unemployed: he was involuntarily terminated from his employment following his arrest and incarceration. Likewise, there was no evidence that his motive for committing the crime which led to his incarceration was to avoid his child support obligations. "While a trial court has discretion to impute income upon a finding of voluntary unemployment, it cannot impute income without such a finding." View "In the Matter of the State of New Hampshire and Lounder " on Justia Law

Defendant Robert Dupont was convicted by jury of alternative counts of knowing and reckless second-degree murder for the October 2008 stabbing death of his wife. On appeal, he argued: (1) the trial court erred in failing to specifically describe self-defense as an element of the offense that the State was required to disprove; and (2) the trial court instructed the jury in such a way that the jury could not consider whether he acted in self-defense. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Dupont " on Justia Law