Cited by

Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 555 (2006) (stating that argument not adequately briefed is considered waived).

In Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539 (2006), for example, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) denied an application for a large groundwater withdrawal permit.

Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 566 (2006).

Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 566 (2006).

Nonetheless, the petitioner argues that even if need is a proper requirement for obtaining a permit, DES erred by “applying the wrong definition of need and improperly looking at offsite structures.” Relying upon Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539 (2006), the petitioner contends that the term “need” means “requisite, desirable, or useful,” and that both DES and the Council erred by failing to apply a definition of need consistent with this definition.

Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 553 (2006).

Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 566 (2006).

Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 553 (2006).

Act Now to Stop War, 905 F. Supp. 2d at 347; cf. Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 546 (2006) (“The starting point in any statutory interpretation case is the language of the statute.” (quotation omitted)).

‘Where governmental action would affect a legally protected interest, the due process clause of the New Hampshire Constitution guarantees to the holder of the interest *274 the right to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Appeal of Pennichuck Water Works, 160 N.H. at 36 (quotation omitted); Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 551 (2006) (“where issues of fact are presented for resolution by an administrative agency due process requires a meaningful opportunity to b

Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 553 (2006).

To the extent Alexander claims the board’s findings are unsupported by the evidence, his single-sentence argument is either not adequately briefed and therefore waived, Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 555 (2006), or, to the extent it references a previous argument, is addressed above.

Co., 146 N.H. 156, 159 (2001) (even where language is ambiguous, one reasonable interpretation of insurance policy language must favor insured before policy can be construed to afford coverage); cf. Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 547 (2006) (ambiguity in regulation need not be resolved where neither possible construction supports challenging party’s position).

Furthermore, the State asserts that private well owners have only a usufructuary interest in their groundwater that is subject to the State's interest as trustee, see Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 548, 904 A.2d 582 (2006), but the MTBE defendants contend that the State loses its interest in the water once it enters a privately owned well.

Furthermore, the State asserts that private well owners have only a usufructuary interest in their groundwater that is subject to the State’s interest as trustee, see Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 548 (2006), but the MTBE defendants contend that the State loses its interest in the water once it enters a privately owned well.

Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 551 (2006); see Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 555 (2006).

Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 555 (2006).

Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 553 (2006).

Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 546 (2006) (“It is not the function of this court to add provisions to the statute that the legislature did not see fit to include.” (citation omitted)).

While it is well settled that an administrative agency must follow its own rules and regulations, Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 554-55 (2006), the plaintiffs’ argument fails for two reasons.

Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 550 (2006).

An agency, however, must “comply with the governing statute, in both letter and spirit, and agency regulations which contradict the terms of a governing statute exceed the agency’s authority.” Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 555 (2006) (quotations and citations omitted).