Cited by

“An issue of fact is material if it affects the outcome of the litigation.” Porter v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 153 (2007).

Porter v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 153 (2007).

Porter v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 153 (2007).

Porter v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 158 (2007).

Pike, 158 N.H. at 271 (“Because we find no contradiction in the positions taken, we do not consider the remaining factors which inform the application of judicial estoppel.”); Porter v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 157 (2007) (same).

513, 518-20 (6th Cir. 2005) (concluding that phrases such as "while performing duties related to the conduct of [the employer's] business" add to and expand upon the phrase "within the scope of employment"); Porter v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 152, 921 A.2d 393 (2007) (An employee's conduct falls within the scope of employment if: "(1) it is of the kind [the employee] is employed to perform; (2) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; and (3) it is actuated,

14 employment”); Porter v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 152 (2007) (An employee’s conduct falls within the scope of employment if: “(1) it is of the kind [the employee] is employed to perform; (2) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; and (3) it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.” (quotation omitted)).

Porter v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 157 (2007) (declining to review a party’s argument where it failed to “undertake a collateral estoppel analysis, or to develop its legal argument”); see also State v. Fernandez, 152 N.H. 233, 239-40 (2005) (“[A] mere laundry list of complaints, without developed legal argument, is insufficient to warrant judicial rev

Porter v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 157 (2007); State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003).

Porter v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 152 (2007) (explaining basis for respondeat superior liability).

Porter v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 157 (2007).

“The doctrine of judicial estoppel generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase.” Cohoon v. IDM Software, 153 N.H. 1, 4 (2005) (quotation and citations omitted); see also Porter v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 156 (2007).

Porter v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 153 (2007).

Pouter v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 153 (2007).