Mastoran Corporation v. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services & a.
Mastoran Corporation v. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services & a., No. 2014-0293 (N.H. Mar. 17, 2015).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2014-0293, Mastoran Corporation v. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services & a., the court on March 17, 2015, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the petitioner’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated reversible error.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Ralph P. Gallo & a. v. Susan Traina & a. 166 N.H. 737
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2014-0293, Mastoran Corporation v. New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services & a., the
court on March 17, 2015, issued the following order:
Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
We affirm.
The petitioner, Mastoran Corporation, appeals the order of the Superior
Court (O’Neill, J.) granting summary judgment to the respondents, New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and Waterfront Marine
Holdings, LLC, on its request for a ruling that it may reinstall a dock that had
been in place to service a Burger King restaurant, which has since closed. The
petitioner argues that the trial court erred in: (1) ruling that its predecessor, as
lessee, was not an “owner” of the shoreline for purposes of RSA 482:41-f (1967)
(repealed 1989; current version at RSA 482-A:17 (2013). See Laws 1989,
339:1); (2) failing to rule that the dock constituted “artificial fill” pursuant to
RSA 482:41-e (1970) (repealed 1989; current version at RSA 482-A:16 (2013).
See Laws 1898, 339:1); (3) ruling that its predecessor’s representations to the
special board constituted implied conditions of approval; and (4) ruling that the
absence of a recorded instrument, executed with the formalities required by
RSA 482:41-f, demonstrated that the petitioner’s predecessor did not obtain a
grant of right from the governor and council. We assume, without deciding,
that each of these arguments is preserved for our review.
As the appealing party, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the petitioner’s challenges to it,
the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the
petitioner has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk