Cited by

“We interpret legislative intent from the statute as written and will not consider what the legislature might have said or add language that the legislature did not see fit to include.” LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 736 (2010).

See, e.g., LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 739 (2010) (holding that disproportionality, and not methodology, is the linchpin in establishing entitlement to an abatement).

good assessing practice.” However, “[d]isproportionality, and not methodology, is the linchpin in establishing entitlement to a petition for abatement.” LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 739 (2010) (quotation omitted); see Porter v. Town of Sanbornton, 150 N.H. 363, 369 (2003).

We described New Hampshire’s statutory property tax scheme in LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734 (2010).

LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 739 (2010).

LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 736, 992 A.2d 666 (2010).

LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 739-40 (2010).

“When faced with conflicting [expert] testimony, a trier of fact is free to accept or reject an expert’s testimony, in whole or in part.” LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 740 (2010); see also Appeal of Pennichuck Water Works, 160 N.H. at 41.

LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 740, 992 A.2d 666 (2010); see also Appeal of Pennichuck Water Works, 160 N.H. at 41, 992 A.2d 740.

“When faced with conflicting [expert] testimony, a trier of fact is free to accept or reject an expert’s testimony, in whole or in part.” LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 740 (2010); see also Appeal of Pennichuck Water Works, 160 N.H. at 41.

LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 740 (2010).

LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 736 (2010).

LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 736 (2010).

Although we normally assume that the fact finder made all necessary subsidiary findings to support its decision, cf. LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 737 (2010) (reviewing trial court decision), the CAB’s failure to address the crucial issue of causation, even after the absence of a finding on the issue was specifically brought to its attention, raises the concern that the CAB may have erroneously believed that the petitioner’s intoxication alone was enough to den

LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 739 (2010).

“[W]e defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence.” LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 739 (2010).

LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 736 (2010).

“While it is possible that a flawed methodology may lead to a disproportionate tax burden, the flawed methodology does not, in and of itself, prove the disproportionate result.” LLK Trust v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 734, 739 (2010) (quotation and brackets omitted).