Cited by

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 166 N.H. 422, 429 (2014); see McNair v. McNair, 151 N.H. 343, 352-53 (2004).

McNair v. McNair, 151 N.H. 343, 355 (2004); Fat Bullies Farm, LLC v. Devenport, 170 N.H. 17, 29 (2017) (applying the McNair rule to conclude that trial court’s grant of summary judgment on erroneous basis was harmless).

McNair v. McNair, 151 N.H. 343, 355 (2004) (applying a harmless error standard to trial court’s ex parte communications).

McNair v. McNair, 151 N.H. 343, 354-55 (2004) (ruling that harmless error standard applied to judicial disqualification issue where underlying result was compelled as a matter of law).

McNair v. McNair, 151 N.H. 343, 355 (2004) (concluding any error was harmless when we “identified other grounds that independently compel the conclusion” reached by the trial court); Barrows, 141 N.H. at 392 (explaining that, to succeed on claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, plaintiff must prove, among other things, that it

McNair v. McNair, 151 N.H. 343, 354-55 (2004) (employing harmless error standard to determine whether judge’s order after recusal may stand).

We are not persuaded, since even a default judgment can “constitute res judicata with respect to a subsequent litigation involving the same cause of action.” McNair v. McNair, 151 N.H. 343, 353 (2004) (quotation omitted).

We have defined the term “cause of action” as “the right to recover, regardless of the theory of recovery.” McNair v. McNair, 151 N.H. 343, 353 (2004) (quotations omitted).

McNair v. McNair, 151 N.H. 343, 354 (2004); In re Zachary G., 159 N.H. 146, 151 (2009).

McNair v. McNair, 151 N.H. 343, 350 (2004) (when the alleged minimum contacts are the same acts upon which the plaintiffs cause of action is based, the minimum contacts relate to the cause of action).

“RSA chapter 173-B was enacted with the intent to preserve and protect the safety of the family unit for all family or household members by entitling victims of domestic violence to immediate and effective police protection and judicial relief.” McNair v. McNair, 151 N.H. 343, 351 (2004) (quotations omitted).

The term “cause of action” is defined as the right to recover, regardless of the theory of recovery.

Specifically, we examine whether: (1) the defendant’s contacts with New Hampshire relate to the cause of action; (2) the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the protections of New Hampshire law; and (3) it would be fair and reasonable to require the defendant to defend the suit in New Hampshire.