Cited by

Ordinarily, parties must exhaust their administrative remedies before appealing to the courts.

See, e.g., McNamara v. Hersh, 157 N.H. 72, 73-76 (2008); Ireland, 151 N.H. at 70.

In reviewing a motion to dismiss, our standard of review is whether the allegations in the plaintiff’s pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.

I. Motions to Dismiss In reviewing a motion to dismiss, our standard of review is whether the allegations in the plaintiffs pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.

McNamara v. Hersh, 157 N.H. 72, 73 (2008) (citation omitted).

*149 In reviewing the granting of a motion to dismiss, we normally determine whether the allegations in the plaintiffs’ pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.

In reviewing the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, we consider whether the allegations in the plaintiffs’ pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.

In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss, we consider whether the allegations contained in the pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.

acted within proper bounds in not considering the [e]asement in determining the value, for tax-related purposes, of the [property, and in arriving at its calculation of the due payment in lieu of taxes.” In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss, we consider whether the allegations contained in the pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.

This legislative scheme is intended to give a local zoning board the first opportunity to pass upon any alleged *52 errors in its decisions so that the superior court may have the benefit of the zoning board’s judgment in hearing the appeal.

RSA 677:15, IV (requiring court to “give any hearing under this section priority on the court calendar”); McNamara v. Hersh, 157 N.H. 72, 74 (2008) (policy behind administrative exhaustion requirement “based on the reasonable policies of encouraging the exercise of administrative expertise, preserving agency autonomy and promoting judicial efficiency”); K & J Assoc.

“In reviewing a motion to dismiss, our standard of review is whether the allegations in the petitioner’s] pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.” McNamara v. Hersh, 157 N.H. 72, 73 (2008) (quotation and brackets omitted).

In reviewing a motion to dismiss, our standard of review is whether the allegations are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.

RSA 677:3 (2008) (issue not raised in motion for rehearing should not be considered by superior court unless good cause shown); McNamara v. Hersh, 157 N.H. 72, 73-74 (2008) (ZBA should have first opportunity to address alleged errors made in its decision).

In reviewing the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, our standard of review is whether the allegations in the petitioner’s pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.