DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Boucher, 101 A.2d 466.

14 citing documents.

  • Moody v. Cunningham 503 A.2d 819 N.H. 1986
    Hood & Sons v. Boucher, 98 N.H. 399, 401, 101 A.2d 466, 468 (1953).
  • Suojanen v. Tardif 437 A.2d 310 N.H. 1981
    that ‘a wrong reason given by a court does not invalidate a correct ruling.’ ” Sprague v. Town of Acworth, 120 N.H. 641, 643, 419 A.2d 1075, 1076 (1980) (quoting H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Boucher, 98 N.H. 399, 404, 101 A.2d 466, 469-70 (1953)); see Burns v. Bradley, 120 N.H. 542, 546-47, 419 A.2d 1069, 1072 (1980).
  • Meadowbrook Inn Corp. v. Sheridan 419 A.2d 1072 N.H. 1980
    Sprague v. Town of Acworth, 120 N.H. 641, 419 A.2d 1075 (1980); Cheever v. Roberts, 82 N.H. 289, 291, 133 A. 22, 23 (1926); Favorite v. Miller, 176 Conn. 310, 317, 407 A.2d 974, 978 (1978); see Moultonboro v. Bissonnette, 105 N.H. 210, 213-14, 196 A.2d 703, 705-06 (1963); Hood & Sons v. Boucher, 98 N.H. 399, 404, 101 A.2d 466, 469-70 (1953).
  • Sprague v. Town of Acworth 419 A.2d 1075 N.H. 1980
    It is well settled here that “a wrong reason given by a court does not invalidate a correct ruling.” H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Boucher, 98 N.H. 399, 404, 101 A.2d 466, 469- *644 70 (1953); compare Cheever v. Roberts, 82 N.H. 289, 133 A. 22 (1926).
  • Proctor v. Butler 380 A.2d 673 N.H. 1977
    “[T]he question of mootness is not subject to rigid rules but ‘seems, rather, to be regarded as one of convenience and discretion.’ ” Hood & Sons v. Boucher, 98 N.H. 399, 401, 101 A.2d 466, 468 (1953).
  • Martel v. Hancock 339 A.2d 9 N.H. 1975
    Hood & Sons v. Boucher, 98 N.H. 399, 101 A.2d 466 (1953).
  • Dolcino v. Thalasinos 321 A.2d 107 N.H. 1974
    Trustees, 114 N.H. 123, 127, 316 A.2d 183, 185 (1974); Herron v. Northwood, 111 N.H. 324, 327, 282 A.2d 661, 663 (1971); Hood & Sons v. Boucher, 98 N.H. 399, 401, 101 A.2d 466, 468 (1953)), we are of the opinion that the issues raised in this case should be determined in a true controversy which affects the legal relations of the parties to the litigation.
  • Preston v. National Grange Mutual Insurance 317 A.2d 787 N.H. 1974
    Sargent v. Ross, 113 N.H. 388, 399, 308 A.2d 528, 535 (1973); Morley v. Clairmont, 110 N.H. 12, 14, 259 A.2d 136, 137 (1969); Hood & Sons v. Boucher, 98 N.H. 399, 404, 101 A.2d 466, 469-70 (1953).
  • State v. White 312 A.2d 711 N.H. 1973
    Hood & Sons v. Boucher, 98 N.H. 399, 401, 101 A.2d 466, 468 (1953).
  • Town of Bedford v. Lynch 308 A.2d 522 N.H. 1973
    “[T]he question of mootness is not subject to rigid rules but ‘seems, rather, to be regarded as one of convenience and discretion.’” Hood Sons v. Boucher, 98 N.H. 399, 401, 101 A.2d 466, 468 (1953).
  • Associated General Contractors v. State 306 A.2d 204 N.H. 1973
    Barstow & Co., 79 F.2d 496 (4th Cir. 1935); Hood & Sons v. Boucher, 98 N.H. 399, 101 A.2d 466 (1953); Pomponio v. State, 106 N.H. 273, 209 A.2d 733 (1965).
  • Clark v. City of Manchester 305 A.2d 668 N.H. 1973
    While the commission would have been better advised to have obtained another doctor’s report corroborative of their concern over his physical fitness, we are not in a position to say that its decision on the basis of the two reports before it was devoid of reason.
  • Roy v. Water Supply & Pollution Control Commission 289 A.2d 650 N.H. 1972
    Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Boucher, 98 N.H. 399, 101 A.2d 466 (1953); Parker-Young Co. v. State, 83 N.H. 551, 145 A. 786 (1929); 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise ss.
  • Herron v. Northwood 282 A.2d 661 N.H. 1971
    “ The question of mootness ‘is not subject to rigid rules but seems rather, to be regarded as one of convenience and discretion.’ Hood & Sons v. Boucher, 98 N.H. 399, 401.