Cited by

Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649 (2008) (“[T]he interpretation of a tribunal’s order presents a question of law, which we review de novo.”).

Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649 (2008).

State v. Surrell, 171 N.H. 82, 88 (2018); Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649 (2008).

Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649 (2008) (“[T]he interpretation of a tribunal’s order presents a question of law, which we review de novo.”).

Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649 (2008) (“[T]he interpretation of a tribunal’s order presents a question of law, which we review de novo.”); cf. Appeal of Farmington Sch.

Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649 (2008) (“[T[he interpretation of a tribunal’s order presents a question of law, which we review de novo.”).

Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649 (2008).

Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649 (2008) (“[T]he interpretation of a tribunal’s order presents a question of law, which we review de novo.”).

Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649 (2008).

The court noted, however, that some municipalities have adopted ordinances expressly allowing non-conforming uses to continue indefinitely, see, e.g., Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 644 (2008) (noting that pre- existing, non-conforming uses “may be continued indefinitely” under ordinance), and ruled that if the objective of the ordinance was to eliminate non-conformity as soon as possible, then the village could have drafted the ordinance differently, see Anderson v. Motorsports Holdings,

“[J]udicial review is not warranted for complaints regarding adverse rulings without developed legal argument, and neither passing reference to constitutional claims nor off-hand invocations of constitutional rights without support by legal argument or authority warrants extended consideration.” Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 658 (2008) (quotation omitted).

Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649 (2008) (“[T]he interpretation of a tribunal’s order presents a question of law, which we review de novo.”).

Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 656 (2008) (remand required because ZBA did not make findings regarding whether petitioner had unlawfully expanded his junkyard operations, let alone the character, nature, scope or effect on the surrounding neighborhood of the purported expansion).

Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 657-58 (2008) (judicial review not warranted for sweeping legal assertion that lacked adequately developed argument or legal support).

Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 657-58 (2008) (judicial review not warranted for sweeping legal assertion that lacked adequately developed argument or legal support).

We will not consider what the legislature might have said, or add language that the legislature did not see fit to include.” Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 653 (2008) (citation omitted).

Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 658 (2008).

“Our review of zoning board decisions is limited.” Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649 (2008).