Cited by

Servs., 166 N.H. 755, 763 (2014) (“[W]here a former statute is clarified by amendment, the amendment is strong evidence of the legislative intent concerning the original enactment.”).

Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin.

Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin.

Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin.

Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin.

We “can neither ignore the plain language of the [ordinance] nor add words which the lawmakers did not see fit to include.” Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin.

166 N.H. 755, 763, 103 A.3d 1207 (2014) (quotation omitted), such is not the case here.

Servs., 166 N.H. 755, 763 (2014) (declining to construe legislation as urged by petitioner, where “it is the petitioner’s interpretation that could lead to absurd results”).

“We use the same principles of construction in interpreting administrative rules as we use with statutes.” Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin.

“In reviewing the trial court’s rulings on cross-motions for summary judgment, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to each party in its capacity as the nonmoving party and, if no genuine issue of material fact exists, we determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin.

“We review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts de novo.” Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin.

Standard of Review “In reviewing the trial court’s rulings on cross-motions for summary judgment, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to each party in its capacity as the nonmoving party and, if no genuine issue of material fact exists, we determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin.

Standards of Review “In reviewing the trial court’s rulings on cross-motions for summary judgment, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to each party in its capacity as the nonmoving party and, if no genuine issue of material fact exists, we determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin.

A Standards of Review “In reviewing the trial court’s rulings on cross-motions for summary judgment, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to each party in its capacity as the nonmoving party and, if no genuine issue of material fact exists, we determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin.

“In reviewing the trial court’s rulings on cross-motions for summary judgment, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to each party in its capacity as the nonmoving party and, if no genuine issue of material fact exists, we determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin.

Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin.

Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin.

In reviewing the trial court’s rulings on cross-motions for summary judgment, “we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to each party in its capacity as the nonmoving party and, if no genuine issue of material fact exists, we determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin.