Cited by

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 758 (2007) (quotation and brackets omitted).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 758 (2007).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 3 As Justice Stevens observed in Crawford, in neither Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992), nor Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992), did the Supreme Court identify any litmus test for 13 762 (2007) (in the context of an equal protection claim, our intermediate le

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 759 (2007) (quotation omitted); see also Desilets, 636 N.E.2d at 236 & n.5 (recognizing that the Massachusetts articulation of the balancing test is essentially the same as the compelling interest balancing test, otherwise known as strict scrutiny).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 759 (2007).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 756 (2007) (quotations omitted).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 753 (2007) (addressing issues in the first instance to the extent that they involved questions of law).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 762 (2007) (discussing intermediate scrutiny test in equal protection context).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 758 (2007).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 759-63 (2007), we opined that distinguishing between owners and lawful possessors, on one hand, and builders and other members of the construction industry, on the other hand, was “reasonable” and rested upon “significant differences” between the two groups that bore a “fair and substantial relation” to the object of

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 754 (2007) (quotation omitted) (addressing a municipality’s zoning power under RSA 674:16, I).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 757 (2007).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 757 (2007).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748 (2007), the plaintiff articulates an equal protection argument that is nearly identical to his third constitutional argument, which he raises under Part I, Article 14 of the State Constitution.

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 751, 917 A.2d 707 (2007) (citation omitted).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 751 (2007) (citation omitted).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 751 (2007).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 762 (2007).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 762 (2007) (citing United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996)).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 760 (2007) (quotation omitted).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748 (2007).

for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 762 (2007).

for Justice, Inc. v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 761 (2007) (quotation and citation omitted).