Cited by

Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 266 (2005).

The respondent observes that this court does “not construe statutes in isolation; instead, we attempt to do so in harmony with the overall statutory scheme,” Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 272 (2005).

Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 273 (2005) (looking to similar statutes from other jurisdictions for guidance).

We have found the legislative intent underlying this statute to be to “encourage private landowners to make their land available for public recreational uses by limiting their liability.” Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 273 (2005).

Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 266 (2005).

We first address whether, as the State contends, the common law writ of coram nobis was abolished by RSA 526:1 (2007), which provides: “A new trial may be granted in any case when through accident, mistake or misfortune justice has not been done and a further hearing would be equitable.” “Statutes in derogation of the common law are to be interpreted strictly.” Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 266 (2005).

Statutory “provisions barring [a] common law right to recover are to be strictly construed.” Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 267 (2005).

Estate of Gordon- Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 266-67 (2005).

Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 271 (2005).

Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 266 (2005).

Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 266 (2005).

Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 266 (2005).

Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 266 (2005).

Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 266, 876 A.2d 196 (2005).

Ct. App. 2008); cf. Bendetson v. Killarney, Inc., 154 N.H. 637, 643 (2006) (holding that we will look to the official comments of the model act for guidance on the intended meaning of the election statute); Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 273 (2005) (because language of New Hampshire statute is nearly identical to that of model act, we will look to model act as well as to similar statutes from other states to interpret New Hampshire statute); State v. Donohue, 150 N.H. 180, 183

Chroniak v. Golden Investment Corp., 133 N.H. 346, 349 (1990) (definition of lender as ‘“any person making a loan secured by a mortgage’” is “quite broad”); Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 270-71 (2005) (phrase “any person” is “broad and unqualified” but should be interpreted in its statutory context).

Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 266 (2005).

als on Suggested State Legislation of the Council of State Governments), which shares much in common with the New Hampshire recreational use statutes, “expressed a basic quid pro quo in its declaration of policy, namely, permission to the general public to use private land for recreational purposes in exchange for immunity from liability for resulting injuries.” Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265, 269 (2005) (quotation omitted; emphasis added).

Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265 (2005).