Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Grand China, Inc. v. United National Insurance, 938 A.2d 905.

15 citing documents.

Fred S. Teeboom v. City of Nashua Daniel Moriarty v. 213 A.3d 877 N.H. 2019
Grand China v. United Nat'l Ins.
State v. Priceline.com, Incorporated n/k/a The Priceline Group, Inc. & a. 206 A.3d 333 N.H. 2019
However, we accord “substantial deference” to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute only when that statute is “of doubtful meaning.” Grand China v. United Nat’l Ins.
Robert Carr & a. v. Town of New London 161 A.3d 753 N.H. 2017
“When interpreting two statutes that deal with a similar subject matter, we construe them so that they do not contradict each other, and so that they will lead to reasonable results and effectuate the legislative purpose of the statutes.” Grand China, Inc. v. United Nat’l Ins.
Appeal of Old Dutch Mustard Co., Inc. N.H. 2014
Co., 156 N.H. 429, 434 (2007) (stating “we only accord substantial deference given a statute of doubtful meaning” (quotation omitted)).
Appeal of Bretton Woods Telephone Co. 56 A.3d 1266 N.H. 2012
Co., 156 N.H. 429, 434 (2007); Appeal of Public Sew.
Professional Fire Fighters v. Town of Wolfeboro 48 A.3d 900 N.H. 2012
Grand China v. United Nat’l Ins.
Frost v. COM'R, NEW HAMPSHIRE BANKING DEPT. 42 A.3d 738 N.H. 2012
Co., 156 N.H. 429, 434, 938 A.2d 905 (2007); cf. Win-Tasch Corp. v. Town of Merrimack, 120 N.H. 6, 9-10, 411 A.2d 144 (1980).
State Employees Ass'n Local 1984 v. New Hampshire Division of Personnel 965 A.2d 1116 N.H. 2009
“When interpreting two statutes that deal with a similar subject matter, we construe them so that they do not contradict each other, and so that they will lead to reasonable results and effectuate the legislative purpose of the statutes.” Grand China v. United Nat’l Ins.
State v. Pratte 959 A.2d 200 N.H. 2008
Grand China v. United Nat’l Ins.
In Re Alexis O. 959 A.2d 176 N.H. 2008
Grand China v. United Nat’l Ins.
State v. Gubitosi 958 A.2d 962 N.H. 2008
Grand China v. United Nat’l Ins.
In re J.B. 157 N.H. 577 N.H. 2008
This enables us to better discern the legislature’s intent and to interpret statutory language in light of the policy or purpose sought to be advanced by the statutory scheme.” Grand China v. United Nat’l Ins.
In Re JB 953 A.2d 1186 N.H. 2008
Grand China v. United Nat'l Ins.
Sleeper v. HOBAN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 955 A.2d 879 N.H. 2008
Grand China v. United Nat’l Ins.
State v. Njogu 937 A.2d 887 N.H. 2007
Grand China v. United Nat’l Ins.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by