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 In re Nelson, 825 A.2d 501.

15 citing documents.

  • Doe v. Manchester Sch. Dist. 2024 N.H. 48 N.H. 2024
    “We have long recognized the right to raise and care for one’s children as a fundamental liberty interest protected by Part I, Article 2 of the State Constitution.” In the Matter of Nelson & Horsley, 149 N.H. 545, 547 (2003).
  • In the Matter of Brianna Kauble and William Kauble N.H. 2023
    In the Matter of Nelson & Horsley, 149 N.H. 545, 547 (2003).
  • In re Bordalo 55 A.3d 982 N.H. 2012
    In the Matter of Nelson & Horsley, 149 N.H. 545, 547 (2003); Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (plurality opinion).
  • In re Guardianship of Reena D. 163 N.H. 107 N.H. 2011
    We have adopted the Troxel plurality’s ruling that “fit parents are presumed to act in the best interest of their children.” In the Matter of Huff & Huff, 158 N.H. 414, 419 (2009) (quotation omitted); see In the Matter of Nelson & Horsley, 149 N.H. 545, 547 (2003).
  • In Re Rupa 13 A.3d 307 N.H. 2010
    Troxel, 530 U.S. at 68; In the Matter of Nelson & Horsley, 149 N.H. 545, 546-47 (2003).
  • In Re Dufton 973 A.2d 271 N.H. 2009
    Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66-67 (2000) (plurality holding that visitation statute allowing any third party to seek visitation is “breathtakingly broad,” and, as applied, unconstitutionally infringed upon parent’s fundamental right to make decisions regarding care, custody and control of child); In the Matter of Nelson & Horsley, 149 N.H. 545, 548 (2003) (“Only in the most unusual and serious of cases may.
  • Egan v. Fridlund-Horne 211 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. 2009
  • In Re Huff 969 A.2d 428 N.H. 2009
    In the Matter of Nelson & Horsley, 149 N.H. 545, 549 (2003).
  • In re J.B. 157 N.H. 577 N.H. 2008
    She argued that the petitioner did not fall within the class of persons entitled to such rights under RSA chapter 461-A, and that granting parental rights to the petitioner would violate her constitutional right, as a fit natural parent, to raise and care for A.B., see In the Matter of Nelson & Horsley, 149 N.H. 545, 547 (2003).
  • In Re JB 953 A.2d 1186 N.H. 2008
    She argued that the petitioner did not fall within the class of persons entitled to such rights under RSA chapter 461-A, and that granting parental rights to the petitioner would violate her constitutional right, as a fit natural parent, to raise and care for A.B., see In the Matter of Nelson & Horsley, 149 N.H. 545, 547, 825 A.2d 501 (2003).
  • In re Jeffrey G. 892 A.2d 1234 N.H. 2006
    In the Matter of Nelson & Horsley, 149 N.H. 545, 547 (2003).
  • In re R.A. 891 A.2d 564 N.H. 2005
    In the Matter of Nelson & Horsley, 149 N.H. 545, 547 (2003).
  • In re Berg 886 A.2d 980 N.H. 2005
    In the Matter of Nelson & Horsley, 149 N.H. 545, 547 (2003).
  • In re Kosek 871 A.2d 1 N.H. 2005
    see In the Matter of Nelson & Horsley, 149 N.H. 545, 548 (2003) (in deciding whether granting custodial rights to unrelated third party over express objection of sole parent violates parent’s State and federal constitutional rights, noting that visitation is a far lesser intrusion or assertion of control than custody, and therefore not nearly as invasive of parents’ ri
  • In re Pfeuffer 837 A.2d 311 N.H. 2003
    In the Matter of Nelson & Horsley, 149 N.H. 545, 547 (2003).