Cited by

Administrative gloss is placed upon an ambiguous clause when those responsible for its implementation interpret the clause in a consistent manner and apply it to similarly situated applicants over a period of years without legislative interference.” Petition of Kalar, 162 N.H. 314, 321 (2011) (citation and quotation omitted).

Similarly, the administrative gloss doctrine applies only when a statutory provision is 9 ambiguous.3 Petition of Kalar, 162 N.H. 314, 322 (2011) (noting that “[l]ack of ambiguity in a statute or ordinance.

Petition of Kalar, 162 N.H. 314, 321, 27 A.3d 756 (2011); DHB v. Town of Pembroke, 152 N.H. 314, 321, 876 A.2d 206 (2005).

Petition of Kalar, 162 N.H. 314, 318, 27 A.3d 756 (2011) (quotations and brackets *627 omitted).

“The only judicial review of a fair hearings decision issued by the department is by petition for a writ of certiorari.” Petition of Kalar, 162 N.H. 314, 318 (2011) (quotation and brackets omitted).

“The applicability of collateral estoppel is a question of law that we review de novo.” Petition of Kalar, 162 N.H. 314, 321 (2011).

“In its most basic formulation, the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a party to a prior action, or a person in privity with such a party, from relitigating any issue or fact actually litigated and determined in the prior action.” Petition of Kalar, 162 N.H. 314, 320 (2011).

“The only judicial review of a fair hearings decision issued by the department is by petition for a writ of certiorari.” Petition of Kalar, 162 N.H. 314, 318 (2011) (quotation and brackets omitted).

Petition of Kalar, 162 N.H. 314, 322 (2011) (noting that under the general rule of statutory construction, the word “shall” is “a command which requires mandatory enforcement” (quotation omitted)).

administrative board when: (1) the issue subject to estoppel is identical in each action; (2) the first action resolved the issue finally on the merits; (3) the party to be estopped appeared in the first action or was in privity with someone who did; (4) the party to be estopped had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; and (5) the finding at issue was essential to the first judgment.

Administrative gloss is placed upon an ambiguous clause when those responsible for its implementation interpret the clause in a consistent manner and apply it to similarly situated applicants over a period of years without legislative interference.” Petition *777 of Kalar, 162 N.H. 314, 321 (2011) (citation and quotation omitted).

We construe the respondent’s argument to assert the doctrine of administrative gloss, which is a rule of statutory construction.

That doctrine bars a party to a prior action, or a person in privity with such a party, from relitigating any issue or fact actually litigated and determined in the prior action.