Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Petitioners Stephen Bartlett and others, appealed a superior court order that vacated a City of Manchester Zoning Board of Adjustment decision which granted intervenor Brookside Congregational Church a variance. Although petitioners asked the trial court to reverse the ZBA's decision, they appealed the court's order because it ruled that Brookside's proposed use and similar uses of its property were permitted as accessory uses under the Manchester Zoning Ordinance (ordinance) as a matter of right. Brookside cross-appealed, asking the Supreme Court to reinstate the ZBA's grant of the variance. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated the superior court order and remanded the case to the ZBA for further proceedings. View "Bartlett v. City of Manchester " on Justia Law

Respondent J Four Realty, LLC appealed a circuit court order that found it violated RSA 540-A:2 and :3, II (2007) by using self-help to evict petitioner Mary Evans, and awarding her actual damages of $3,000 and attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner did not have a written lease; she resided in the apartment as a tenant at will pursuant to an informal agreement with the prior owner. Respondent purchased the property from a foreclosure sale. Petitioner continued to pay rent to the prior owner. Respondent dispatched an agent to evict petitioner. She then brought suit and won at trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that petitioner was a tenant at sufferance, and that respondent was not her landlord under New Hampshire law. However, pursuant to case law and statutory authority, even though respondent was not petitioner's landlord, respondent was not entitled to use self help to evict petitioner. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Evans v. J Four Realty, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant Jeremy Miller appealed a superior court order that found in favor of plaintiffs, Lakes Region Gaming, LLC and three of its members on their claims that Defendant breached his fiduciary duties to them. The claim arose from the purchase of the Lakes Region Greyhound Park. The transaction to purchase the race track never closed because a New Hampshire grand jury indicted a dozen people involved with the track, which caused the members of Lakes Region Gaming to reconsider buying the track. The members decided to try and sell the right to purchase the track so that they could recoup their expenses. If they sold the rights at a profit, it would have been split according to each member's interest in the company. Unbeknownst to plaintiffs, Defendant had been negotiating the right to purchase the track with a number of potential buyers. As a result, a buyer surfaced and paid $5 million for the track, resulting with a net profit of $898,998. Also unbeknownst to plaintiffs, an agreement was reached with the seller's attorney to extend the due diligence period of the sale in exchange for Defendant paying the attorney $50,000. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Defendant breached his fiduciary duties to plaintiffs by holding a portion of the net profits from the sale of the purchase rights for himself. Defendant unsuccessfully moved to reconsider the trial court's decision, arguing that: (1) he did not owe plaintiffs a duty because Lakes Region Gaming abandoned its "contemplated dealings;" and (2) the trial court's order failed to consider a clause in Lakes Region Gaming's operating agreement. Upon review, the Supreme Court found Defendant's arguments on appeal to be without merit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's order. View "Lakes Region Gaming v. Miller" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by jury of attempted kidnapping and attempted aggravated felonious sexual assault. On appeal of his conviction, he argued that : (1) he was denied a unanimous jury verdict on the attempted aggravated sexual assault charge; and (2) he was entitled to a dismissal of the attempted kidnapping charged based on merger. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed with defendant's argument that the jury instruction delivered by the trial court allowed the jury to convict him without being unanimous as to the elements constituting attempted AFSA because the two variants of AFSA require different elements. The Court concluded that defendant's attempt to confine his victim was incidental and inseparable from his attempt to commit AFSA. Accordingly, the Court found that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the kidnapping charged based on merger. View "New Hampshire v. Casanova" on Justia Law

Petitioner Signal Aviation Services, Inc. appealed a superior court order which granted a motion to dismiss filed by the City of Lebanon. The City entered into a twenty year lease with HL Leasing for certain municipal airport lands. HL Leasing assigned its rights to Sierra Nevada Helicopters, which then assigned the rights to its affiliate, Signal. In the lease, the City agreed it would not allow any other provider of commercial aeronautical services to operate at the airport under terms more favorable than those set forth in the lease. In 2006, the City increased the assessed value of Signal's leased land. Signal claimed that the city assessed its land disproportionately as compared to other entities operating and leasing land at the airport. Signal was unsuccessful in seeking an abatement of its 2006 and 2007 taxes. The New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) dismissed Signal's appeals, holding that Signal failed to present any evidence of the market value of its property. Signal did not appeal the BTLA's decision nor did it contest the City's 2008 and 2009 assessments. Signal then filed suit in superior court to challenge all of the assessments. The trial court concluded that though Signal's petition was styled as a breach of contract, but that it was actually a request for tax abatement and outside the court's jurisdiction. The trial court then dismissed Signal's petition for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision insofar as it related to Signal's allegations of "disproportionate taxation." However, to the extent that Signal's breach of contract claim sought relief from "unequal treatment," specifically with respect to the amount of taxable land the City attributed to Signal and to other airport tenants with which the City contracts, Signal could pursue this claim without complying with the tax abatement statutory process. View "Signal Aviation Services, Inc. v. City of Lebanon" on Justia Law

The State appealed a superior court order which granted defendant Patrick Eschenbrenner a new trial on three counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault based on the court's conclusion that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, the State argued that defendant's trial attorneys were not ineffective for failing to object to certain testimony presented at trial, and that no reasonable probability existed that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the trial court excluded the testimony in question. Upon review of the trial court record and the testimony at issue, the Supreme Court agreed with the State's argument, concluding defendant did not suffer actual prejudice at trial. Accordingly, the Court reversed the superior court's conclusion. View "New Hampshire v. Eschenbrenner" on Justia Law