Joseph Haas v. TD Bank
Joseph Haas v. TD Bank, No. 2015-0242 (N.H. Sept. 25, 2015).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2015-0242, Joseph Haas v. TD Bank, the court on September 25, 2015, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case.
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.
- State v. Blackmer 149 N.H. 47
- In re Birmingham 154 N.H. 51
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2015-0242, Joseph Haas v. TD Bank, the court
on September 25, 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 plaintiff, Joseph Haas, appeals the order of the Superior Court
(Kissinger, J.) dismissing his complaint against the defendant, TD Bank, N.A.
Complaints regarding adverse rulings by the trial court without
developed legal argument are insufficient to warrant judicial review. State v.
Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003). The plaintiff’s brief consists of a single page
with six numbered paragraphs. It contains no developed legal argument and
does not otherwise comply with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 16(3).
Self-represented litigants are bound by the same procedural requirements as
parties represented by counsel. In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham,
154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006). Accordingly, we decline to address the issues raised.
See Blackmer, 149 N.H. at 49 (confining our review to issues fully briefed).
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk