Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Allen Mercier appealed a superior court decision to deny his motion to suppress evidence that led to his convictions in a jury-waived trial for disobeying a police officer and driving while certified as a habitual offender. In 2011, a state trooper observed a pickup truck, driven by the defendant, with a partially shattered rear window. Based upon his observations of the window, the trooper pulled the vehicle over, leading to the defendant's arrest. The State argued that the police had reasonable suspicion of a violation of RSA 266:58 (2004), and the trial court agreed, that the defendant's truck was not "equipped with safety glass" because the rear window was so "severely fragmented into small pieces . . . that visibility through that window was impossible." Upon review of the statute at issue here, and the trial court record, the Supreme Court agreed with Defendant's argument that his vehicle was indeed equipped with safety glass as defined by RSA 259:94. "The statute's specific references to 'glass so treated or combined with other materials' and 'ordinary sheet glass or plate glass' suggest that the legislature was concerned with the composition of the glass used in vehicles rather than its condition once installed. The fact that a panel of safety glass is cracked or otherwise damaged does not mean that it is no longer safety glass." The Supreme Court concluded that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was operating his vehicle in violation of RSA 266:58. Accordingly, the Court reversed the denial of his motion to suppress. View "New Hampshire v. Mercier" on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Gribble appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, witness tampering, and conspiracy to commit burglary. On appeal, he argued that the Superior Court erred when it: (1) denied his motion to suppress; (2) denied his motions for a change of venue; and (3) instructed the jury concerning insanity. Finding these arguments to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Gribble" on Justia Law

A "substantial number" of post-arrest co-conspirator statements were improperly admitted in the trial of Defendant Hector Rodriguez. He was accused of burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, first degree assault, accomplice to first degree assault, and conspiracy to commit first degree assault. Following his conviction, the superior court acknowledged its error and attempted to remedy it by vacating the burglary conviction and one of the first degree assault convictions (the one based on the theory that the defendant acted as a principal in the commission of the assault), while allowing the remaining three convictions to stand. Because, after its review, the Supreme Court concluded that the improperly admitted evidence constituted harmless error with respect only to defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit burglary, the Court affirmed that conviction, but reversed his convictions on the accomplice and conspiracy first degree assault charges and remanded the case for a new trial on those charges. View "New Hampshire v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff The Sunapee Difference, LLC appealed: (1) a superior court order that granted summary judgment to the State on Sunapee’s claims for breach of contract, equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, reformation, and inverse condemnation; and (2) an order partially granting the State's motion to dismiss Sunapee's inverse condemnation claim. The State appealed the superior court's order that ruled Sunapee had standing to bring a reformation claim. The matter arose from a management proposal and lease authorized by the New Hampshire legislature with regard to a ski area at Mount Sunapee State Park. The Capital Budget Overview Committee approved the Lease; a month later, the State produced a map and property description with the metes and bounds of the leasehold area. Sunapee discovered that the northern and western leasehold boundaries described in the Lease were not coterminous with those of the state park. At some time during the lease period, Sunapee had proposed expanding the ski area to the east. Sunapee obtained options to buy privately-owned land bordering the western boundary of the state park. Because the leasehold and state park boundaries were not described as coterminous in the Lease, this land could not be used for expansion without including buffer land in the leasehold. Accordingly, Sunapee requested that the State approve inclusion of the buffer land in an amendment to the Lease. Based upon the State's assurances that it favored the western expansion plan as long as Sunapee satisfied certain conditions, Sunapee exercised the purchase options for $2.1 million. A new governor was elected during the pendency of Sunapee's expansion plans. The new governor strongly opposed Sunapee's plans for expansion. The Governor refused to bring the proposed expansion before the Executive Council. Sunapee subsequently sued the State for damages or alternatively, mandamus relief, alleging breach of contract. Upon review, the Supreme Court: (1) found that there were issues of material facts with regard to breach of contract, estoppel and inverse condemnation, and reversed the trial court with respect to those claims; (2) found that Sunapee had standing to bring the reformation claim; and (3) affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment with regard to the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Sunapee Difference, LLC v. New Hampshire" on Justia Law

Petitioner Hannaford Brothers Company appealed a superior court order that dismissed its appeal of a Town of Bedford Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) decision for lack of standing. Petitioner owned and operated a 36,541 square foot supermarket on Route 101 in Bedford’s commercial district. Petitioner obtained planning board approval for its supermarket in November 2006, shortly after the Town of Bedford (Town) enacted a zoning ordinance amendment restricting the size of any single building in the commercial district to 40,000 square feet. Retail Management and Development, Inc. (RMD), the intervenor in this case, developed supermarkets. In November 2010, RMD filed an application with the ZBA seeking a variance to exceed the 40,000 square foot restriction in order to construct a 78,332 square foot supermarket on Route 114 in the commercial district. The location of RMD’s proposed supermarket is 3.8 miles from petitioner’s supermarket. Although petitioner objected to the variance application, the ZBA granted it. The ZBA found, among other things, that the "spirit of the ordinance" was intended to limit the size of buildings on Route 101, but not on Route 114, where RMD sought to build. The ZBA denied the petitioner's motion for rehearing, finding that the petitioner was not a "person directly affected" by its decision and, thus, lacked standing to move for rehearing. Petitioner argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court erred in dismissing its appeal based upon a lack of standing. Upon review, the Court concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate that it had a "direct, definite interest in the outcome of the [ZBA’s] action," and accordingly affirmed the superior court's order. View "Hannaford Brothers Co. v. Town of Bedford" on Justia Law

Claimant William Stewart appealed a decision of the appeal tribunal, as affirmed by the appellate board of the New Hampshire Department of Employment Security (DES) that denied his application for unemployment benefits. Stewart worked as the code enforcement director for the City of Laconia from March 14 to June 29, 2011. Following his termination, Stewart applied for unemployment benefits. A DES certifying officer denied the application. The officer determined that Stewart did not have annual earnings of at least $1,400 in two of four quarters of his alternate base period. Stewart appealed the decision to the tribunal. He argued that he had earnings of at least $1,400 in both the third and fourth quarters of his alternate base period. Following a hearing, the tribunal affirmed the decision denying Stewart’s claim. Stewart argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the tribunal erred in concluding that he had insufficient quarterly earnings under RSA 282-A:25 to establish a claim for benefits. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that DES’s reliance on its decision in "Appeal of Tennis" was misplaced. View "Appeal of William Stewart" on Justia Law

Petitioner Town of Bartlett Board of Selectmen appealed a superior court order that upheld a decision of the Town of Bartlett Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) finding that a sign erected by intervenor River Run Company, Inc. (River Run) was permitted under the Town's zoning ordinance. Upon review of the applicable ordinances and the superior court record, the Supreme Court found no error in the superior court's decision and affirmed. View "Town of Bartlett Board of Selectmen v. Town of Bartlett Zoning Board of Adjustment" on Justia Law

Respondent Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) appealed a superior court decision that vacated decision of the New Hampshire Motor Vehicle Industry Board (Board) and ruled that RSA chapter 357-C rendered unenforceable a provision of a written settlement agreement between Nissan and petitioner, Strike Four, LLC, a Nissan dealer. Nissan also appealed the superior court's ruling that it was entitled to neither specific performance of the settlement agreement nor attorney's fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision, but vacated that court's dismissal of Nissan's claim for attorney fees. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Strike Four, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioners Steve and Laura Trefethen appealed a superior court order that dismissed their appeal from a Town of Derry Zoning Board of Adjustment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Board concluded that the petitioners' appeal was untimely filed, but the Supreme Court disagreed. The decision was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Trefethen v. Town of Derry" on Justia Law

The City of Nashua appealed a New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) ruling that taxpayer Marijane Kennedy was entitled to an "elderly exemption" under RSA 72:39-a (2012) for the 2011 tax year. Upon review of the applicable statute and the facts on record in this case, the Supreme Court found that the BTLA erred in its interpretation and accordingly reversed. View "Appeal of City of Nashua" on Justia Law