DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Hill-Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge Lighting Precinct, 986 A.2d 662.

13 citing documents.

  • PPI Enterprises, LLC v. Town of Windham N.H. 2024
    requiring the payment of just compensation.” Hill-Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge Lighting Precinct, 159 N.H. 529, 532 (2009) (quotation omitted).
  • Explained TransFarmations, Inc. v. Town of Amherst N.H. 2022
    As we explained in Hill- Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge Lighting Precinct, 159 N.H. 529 (2009), “it is logical to presume that if the [board] invites submission of a subsequent application modified to meet its concerns, it would find an application so modified to be materially different from its predecessor, thus satisfying Fisher.” Hill-Grant Living Trust, 159 N.H. at 536.
  • Clark v. N.H. Dep't of Emp't Sec. 201 A.3d 652 N.H. 2019
    Hill-Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge Lighting Precinct, 159 N.H. 529, 535, 986 A.2d 662 (2009).
  • Michelle Clark v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security & a. N.H. 2019
    Hill-Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge Lighting Precinct, 159 N.H. 529, 535 (2009).
  • Appeal of Mary Allen & a. N.H. 2018
    Hill-Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge Lighting Precinct, 159 N.H. 529, 536 (2009) (“[I]t is logical to presume that if [an agency] invites submission of a subsequent application 7 modified to meet its concerns, it would find an application so modified to be materially different from its predecessor, thus satisfying Fisher.”).
  • In re Allen 186 A.3d 879 N.H. 2018
    Hill-Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge Lighting Precinct, 159 N.H. 529, 536, 986 A.2d 662 (2009) ("[I]t is logical to presume that if [an agency] invites submission of a subsequent application modified to meet its concerns, it would find an application so modified to be materially different from its predecessor, thus satisfying Fisher.").
  • James Faro & a. v. IKO Industries, Inc. N.H. 2018
    Hill-Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge Lighting Precinct, 159 N.H. 529, 535 (2009).
  • William Weaver & a. v. Randall Stewart & a. 151 A.3d 70 N.H. 2016
    A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must “set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial,” and not simply assert “general allegations or denials.” Hill-Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge Lighting Precinct, 159 N.H. 529, 535 (2009) (quotation omitted).
  • CBDA Development, LLC v. Town of Thornton 137 A.3d 1107 N.H. 2016
    Hill-Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge Lighting Precinct, 159 N.H. 529, 536 (2009).
  • Brandt Development Co. v. City of Somersworth 34 A.3d 593 N.H. 2011
    Hill-Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge Lighting Precinct, 159 N.H. 529, 536 (2009).
  • State v. NORTH OF THE BORDER TOBACCO, LLC 32 A.3d 548 N.H. 2011
    Hill-Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge Lighting Precinct, 159 N.H. 529, 535 (2009) (to defeat summary judgment, the non-moving party must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial).
  • Kalil v. Town of Dummer Zoning Board of Adjustment 159 N.H. 725 N.H. 2010
    Hill-Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge Lighting Precinct, 159 N.H. 529, 533 (2009) (holding that a state taking claim is ripe as soon as zoning board has issued its final decision).
  • Kalil v. TOWN OF DUMMER 992 A.2d 725 N.H. 2010
    Hill-Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge Lighting Precinct, 159 N.H. 529, ___, 986 A.2d 662 (2009) (holding that a state taking claim is ripe as soon as zoning board has issued its final decision).