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 Big League Entertainment, Inc. v. Brox Industries, Inc., 821 A.2d 1054.

33 citing documents.

  • Sullyville, LLC v. Town of Carroll N.H. 2021
    Big League Entm’t. v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 484-85 (2003).
  • Alicia Wade v. Frisbie Memorial Hospital & a. N.H. 2021
    “In reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we consider the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482 (2003).
  • Robert Gormley & a. v. Rough Diamond Development, LLC & a. N.H. 2020
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 484 (2003).
  • John C. Rankin & a. v. South Street Downtown Holdings, Inc. South Street Downtown Holdings, Inc. v. TruexCullins … N.H. 2019
    In addition, our construction of RSA 508:4-b comports with the statute’s purpose, which is to relieve potential defendants in the building trades “from infinite liability perpetuated by the discovery rule.” Big League Entm’t. v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 484 (2003).
  • Lennartz v. Oak Point Associates, P.A. 112 A.3d 1159 N.H. 2015
    v. Levine, 152 N.H. 537 (2005); Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480 (2003).
  • Ingram v. Drouin 111 A.3d 1104 N.H. 2015
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 484 (2003); see also Laws 1990, 164:1.
  • Dichiara v. Sanborn Regional School District 82 A.3d 225 N.H. 2013
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482 (2003).
  • Phaneuf Funeral Home v. Little Giant Pump Co. 48 A.3d 912 N.H. 2012
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482 (2003).
  • Lamprey v. Britton Construction, Inc. 37 A.3d 359 N.H. 2012
    claims because she brought them “within 8 years from the date of substantial completion of [her home].” RSA 508:4-b, I. Unlike a statute of limitation, the construction statute of repose creates a time limitation that is measured not from the date of an injury or its discovery, but from the “substantial completion” of “an improvement to real property.” Id.-, see Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 483 (2003).
  • Marshall v. Burke 34 A.3d 705 N.H. 2011
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482 (2008).
  • Waterfield v. Meredith Corp. 20 A.3d 865 N.H. 2011
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482 (2003).
  • Northern Security Insurance v. Connors 20 A.3d 912 N.H. 2011
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482 (2003).
  • Sanchez v. Candia Woods Golf Links 13 A.3d 268 N.H. 2010
    “In reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we consider the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482 (2003).
  • Gray v. Kelly 13 A.3d 848 N.H. 2010
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 483 (2003).
  • Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance v. State 161 N.H. 121 N.H. 2010
    “In reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we consider the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482 (2003).
  • ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US INS. CO. v. State 13 A.3d 256 N.H. 2010
    Big League Entm't v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482, 821 A.2d 1054 (2003).
  • Concord General Mutual Insurance v. Doe 8 A.3d 154 N.H. 2010
    “In reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we consider the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482 (2003).
  • Beane v. Dana S. Beane & Co., P.C. 7 A.3d 1284 N.H. 2010
    place a limit on the time in which a plaintiff may bring suit after a cause of action accrues.” Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 483 (2003) (citation omitted).
  • Perez v. Pike Industries, Inc. 889 A.2d 27 N.H. 2005
    ts causal relationship to the act or omission were not discovered and could not reasonably have been discovered at the time of the act or omission, the limitations period only begins to run when “the plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury and its causal relationship to the act or omission complained of.” Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 485 (2003); RSA 508:4, I. This two-pronged rule requires that, before the statute of l
  • Kelleher v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. 891 A.2d 477 N.H. 2005
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 485 (2003).
  • Winnisquam Regional School District v. Levine 880 A.2d 369 N.H. 2005
    In Big League Entertainment, Inc. v. Brox Industries, Inc., 149 N.H. 480 (2003), we held that RSA 508:4-b acts as a statute of repose.
  • Wood v. Greaves 876 A.2d 241 N.H. 2005
    That rule embodies a two-pronged test: “First, a plaintiff must know or reasonably should have known that it has been injured; and second, a plaintiff must know or reasonably should have known that its injury was proximately caused by the conduct of the defendant.” Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 485 (2003).
  • Hughes v. New Hampshire Division of Aeronautics 871 A.2d 18 N.H. 2005
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482 (2003).
  • White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman 855 A.2d 437 N.H. 2004
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482 (2003).
  • New Hampshire Water Resources Council v. Steels Pond Hydro, Inc. 855 A.2d 541 N.H. 2004
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482 (2003).
  • In re Goffstown Education Support Staff 846 A.2d 1179 N.H. 2004
    Big League Entm’l, v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 483 (2003).
  • Blackthorne Group, Inc. v. Pines of Newmarket, Inc. 848 A.2d 725 N.H. 2004
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 483 (2003).
  • City of Manchester School District v. City of Manchester 843 A.2d 966 N.H. 2004
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482 (2003).
  • In re Jerome 843 A.2d 325 N.H. 2004
    We examine the statute’s language, ascribing to its words their plain and ordinary meanings, see id., *629 and interpret it in the context of the overall legislative scheme and not in isolation, Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 483 (2003).
  • Swain v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. 845 A.2d 1239 N.H. 2004
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482 (2003).
  • State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Holyoke Mutual Insurance 841 A.2d 68 N.H. 2004
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482 (2003).
  • Nilsson v. Bierman 839 A.2d 25 N.H. 2003
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 483 (2003).
  • In re State 837 A.2d 291 N.H. 2003
    Big League Entm’t v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 485-86 (2003).