DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Fichtner v. Pittsley, 774 A.2d 1239.

15 citing documents.

  • Henderson Holdings at Sugar Hill, LLC v. Town of Sugar Hill 48 A.3d 892 N.H. 2012
    “Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the legislature’s intent in enacting them and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.” Fichtner v. Pittsley, 146 N.H. 512, 514 (2001) (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Gardner 34 A.3d 665 N.H. 2011
    “Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the legislature’s intent in enacting them and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.” Fichtner v. Pittsley, 146 N.H. 512, 514 (2001).
  • In Re Muchmore 986 A.2d 456 N.H. 2009
    “Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the legislature’s intent in enacting them and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.” Fichtner v. Pittsley, 146 N.H. 512, 514 (2001) (quotation omitted).
  • Fisher v. Minichiello 921 A.2d 385 N.H. 2007
    We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidential support or tainted by error of law.
  • Eldertrust of Florida, Inc. v. Town of Epsom 919 A.2d 776 N.H. 2007
    On appeal, we review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law, and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidential support or tainted by error of law.
  • Miller v. Blackden 913 A.2d 742 N.H. 2006
    We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidential support or tainted by error of law.
  • McNair v. McNair 856 A.2d 5 N.H. 2004
    estoppel from hearing issues previously decided by a Texas court; (4) the Family Division lacked authority to invalidate or contravene a final divorce decree issued by a Texas court; (5) the Family Division judge took part in an improper ex parte investigation of facts when she spoke to staff of a Texas court; and (6) the Family Division erred in holding itself not bound by Fichtner v. Pittsley, 146 N.H. 512 (2001).
  • State v. Clark 849 A.2d 143 N.H. 2004
    “Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the legislature’s intent in enacting them and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.” Fichtner v. Pittsley, 146 N.H. 512, 514 (2001) (quotation omitted).
  • GGP Steeplegate, Inc. v. City of Concord 845 A.2d 581 N.H. 2004
    “Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the legislature’s intent in enacting them and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.” Fichtner v. Pittsley, 146 N.H. 512, 514 (2001) (quotation and citation omitted).
  • State v. Kidder 843 A.2d 312 N.H. 2004
    “Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the legislature’s intent in enacting them and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.” Fichtner v. Pittsley, 146 N.H. 512, 514 (2001) (quotation and citation omitted).
  • Magoon v. Thoroughgood 803 A.2d 1070 N.H. 2002
    Because statutory interpretation is a matter of law, we review the trial court’s decision de novo.
  • In re Alexander 790 A.2d 142 N.H. 2002
    “[W]e review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidential support or tainted by error of law.” Fichtner v. Pittsley, 146 N.H. 512, 515 (2001) (quotations and citations omitted).
  • Hawkins v. New Hampshire Department of Health & Human Resources 788 A.2d 255 N.H. 2001
    The trial court’s interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.
  • Crowley v. Frazier 788 A.2d 263 N.H. 2001
    The trial court’s interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.
  • Fillmore v. Fillmore 786 A.2d 849 N.H. 2001
    On appeal, “we review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law, and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidential support or tainted by error of law.” Fichtner v. *285 Pittsley, 146 N.H. 512, 515 (2001) (brackets, quotations and citations omitted).