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 Verizon New England, Inc. v. City of Rochester, 855 A.2d 497.

13 citing documents.

  • Northern New England Telephone Operations, LLC d/b/a FairPoint Communications - NNE v. Town of Acworth N.H. 2020
    For example, the Towns point out that “[w]hile a municipality may alter licenses it issues, a municipality’s authority is limited by the ‘public good’ standard.” See RSA 231:163; see also Verizon New England v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263, 269-70 (2004) (Rochester II) (“Under the plain language of [RSA 231:163], a [municipality] may change the terms and conditions of a license that it has issued whenever the public good requires.”).
  • Segtel, Inc. v. City of Nashua 166 A.3d 213 N.H. 2017
    Verizon New England v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263, 268 (2004) (agreeing with trial court’s determination that “[w]hatever interests the city.
  • Signal Aviation Services, Inc. v. City of Lebanon 144 A.3d 869 N.H. 2016
    RSA 72:23, I(b) (emphasis added); see Verizon New England v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263, 266-67 (2004) (Rochester II) (holding that, according to the unambiguous, plain language of RSA 72:23, I(b), “leases and other agreements which permit the use or occupation of public property must provide for the payment of properly assessed real estate taxes”); Rochester I, 144 N.H. at 122 (explaining that leased pr
  • Signal Aviation Services, Inc. v. City of Lebanon 62 A.3d 877 N.H. 2013
    Absent such evidence, the BTLA ruled that it could not determine “whether [Signal] is over[-]assessed or whether [the properties of the other airport tenants] are under[-]assessed or some of both.” See Verizon New England v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263, 272 (2004) (To prove disproportionality, taxpayer must establish “that its property is assessed at a higher percentage of fair market value than the percentage at which property is generally assessed in the city.”).
  • State v. Ploof 34 A.3d 563 N.H. 2011
    Verizon New England v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263, 270 (2004).
  • Sutton v. Town of Gilford 992 A.2d 709 N.H. 2010
    Verizon New England v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263, 266 (2004).
  • The LLK TRUST v. Town of Wolfeboro 992 A.2d 666 N.H. 2010
    “[D]isproportionality, and not methodology, is the linchpin in establishing entitlement to a petition for abatement.” Verizon New England v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263, 272 (2004); see Porter v. Town of Sanbornton, 150 N.H. 363, 369 (2003).
  • North Country Environmental Services v. State 943 A.2d 786 N.H. 2008
    Verizon New England v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263, 270 (2004).
  • Verizon New England, Inc. v. City of Rochester 940 A.2d 237 N.H. 2007
    Verizon New England v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263 (2004) (Rochester II); N.E.
  • Appeal of Walsh 934 A.2d 528 N.H. 2007
    “[T]o carry the burden of proving disproportionality, a taxpayer must establish that the taxpayer’s property is assessed at a higher percentage of fair market value than the percentage at which property is generally assessed in the town.” Verizon New England v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263, 272 (2004) (emphasis added); see Nadeau 199) Trust, 155 N.H. at 812.
  • Community Resources for Justice, Inc. v. City of Manchester 917 A.2d 707 N.H. 2007
    Verizon New England v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263,270 (2004).
  • Appeal of Hopkinton School District 862 A.2d 45 N.H. 2004
    Verizon New England v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263, 271 (2004) (remanding for application of test by the trial court in the first instance).
  • State v. Sousa 855 A.2d 1284 N.H. 2004
    Verizon New England v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263, 271 (2004) (remanding for application of test by the trial court in the first instance).