Cited by

Under RSA 507- B:5, governmental units, including cities, have immunity for “any action to recover for bodily injury, personal injury or property damage except as provided by [RSA chapter 507-B] or as is provided or may be provided by other statute.” RSA 507-B:5 (2010); see also RSA 507-B:1, I (2010) (defining “Governmental unit”); Dichiara v. Sanborn Reg’l Sch.

Dist., 165 N.H. 694, 696-97 (2013) (“Under a plain reading of the statute, RSA 507-B:2 provides an exception for fault-based claims only when there is a nexus between the claim and the government unit’s ownership, occupation, maintenance, or operation of a motor vehicle or premises.”).

Dist., 165 N.H. 694, 696-97 (2013); see Lamb v. Shaker Reg’l Sch.

Dichiara v. Sanborn Reg’l Sch.

Dichiara v. Sanborn Reg’l Sch.

Dichiara v. Sanborn Reg’l Sch.

Dist., 165 N.H. 694, 696- 97 (2013), in Huckins we held that “it is unconstitutional for the State to immunize itself or its municipalities from liability for intentional torts committed by government employees when those torts are not grounded on a reasonable belief in the lawfulness of the disputed act.” Huckins, 166 N.H. at 182 (empha

Dichiara v. Sanborn Reg’l Sch.

Dist., 165 N.H. 694, 698 (2013) (holding that “RSA 507- B:2 provides an exception to RSA 507-B:5 only when there is a nexus between the injury and a governmental unit’s ownership, occupation, maintenance, or operation of a motor vehicle or premises”).

Dichiara v. Sanborn Reg’l Sch.

luded that although “the easement language in this case presents a close[ ]” question, it “does not prohibit use to access after-acquired abutting parcels.” “In reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we consider the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Dichiara v. Sanborn Reg’l Sch.

“In reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we consider the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Dichiara v. Sanborn Reg’l. Sch.

At oral argument, the plaintiff challenged our interpretation of RSA 507- B:2 and RSA 507-B:5 in Dichiara v. Sanborn Regional School District, 165 N.H. ___, ___, 82 A.3d 225, 228 (2013).

Dichiara v. Sanborn Regional School District, 165 N.H. ___, ___, 82 A.3d 225, 227 (2013).

that the plaintiff “was injured by neither the robocalls nor their allegedly unattributed nature, and therefore can prove neither standing nor liability.” “In reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we consider the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Dichiara v. Sanborn Reg’l. Sch.