Cited by

rgue that Member Wroblewski was biased in that his “son was one of the complainants giving rise to the appeals before the ZBA and Member Wroblewski had discussed the case with his son outside of the public hearing process.” Regarding Member Wroblewski’s general familial relationship with his son, we conclude that this issue was not “raised at the earliest possible time.” Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 604 (2004).

(quotation omitted); see also Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 604 (2004) (observing that “[w]e require disqualification issues to be raised at the earliest possible time because trial forums should have a full opportunity to come to sound conclusions and to correct errors in the first instance” (quotation omitted)).

f municipalities, corporations and banks,” does not create “a conflict of interest in a land use application to consolidate water treatment operations under one roof.” We require disqualification issues to be raised at the earliest possible time because “trial forums should have a full opportunity to come to sound conclusions and to correct errors in the first instance.” Fox v. Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 604 (2004) (quotation omitted).

Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 604 (2004) (requiring disqualification issues in administrative appeals to be “raised at the earliest possible time”); see also Taylor v. Town of Wakefield, 158 N.H. 35, 38 (2008) (appellants raised disqualification issue at the earliest possible time when they raised it in a motion for rehearing, and they first lear

Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 604 (2004) (stating that disqualification issues must be raised at earliest possible time); see also N.H. Dep’t of Corrections v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676, 679 (2002) (holding that appellant failed to preserve issue that she could not have been expected to raise until the trial court issued its order because she failed

“Interested parties are entitled to object to any error they perceive in governmental proceedings, but they are not entitled to take later advantage of error they could have discovered or chose to ignore at the very moment when it could have been corrected.” Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 604 (2004) (quotation omitted).

Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 604, 864 A.2d 351 (2004) (quotation omitted).

“An accessory use is not the principal use of the property, but rather a use occasioned by the principal use and subordinate to it.” Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 606 (2004).

Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 605 (2004).

Because the traditional rules of statutory construction govern our review, we construe the words and phrases of an ordinance according to the common and approved usage of the language.” Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 605 (2004) (citation omitted).

Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 603 (2004); Feins v. Town of Wilmot, 154 N.H. 715, 717 (2007).

Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 605 (2004).

Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 604 (2004) (party must raise objection at earliest possible time in litigation process in order to preserve an issue for appellate review).

The superior court ruled that, although the Taylors first raised disqualification of Arnone in their motion for rehearing, the issue was preserved for review because they raised it “at the earliest possible time.” See Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 604 (2004) (requiring disqualification issues in administrative appeals to be “raised at the earliest possible time”).

Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 605 (2004); see Feins v. Town of Wilmot, 154 N.H. 715, 719 (2007).

Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 605 (2004).

Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 603 (2004) (zoning board of adjustment); Summa Humma Enters.

Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 603 (2004).

Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600, 603 (2004).