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 Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests v. Site Evaluation Committee, 337 A.2d 778.

29 citing documents.

  • Appeal of Conservation Law Foundation N.H. 2021
    CLF points us to Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests v. Site Evaluation Committee, 115 N.H. 163 (1975), and Hampton National Bank v. State, 114 N.H. 38 (1974), in support of its argument that Condition 21’s “vague and ambiguous nature” inhibits our ability to determine whether the permit provides a substantial public benefit.
  • Appeal of Pennichuck Water Works, Inc. 992 A.2d 740 N.H. 2010
    The Federal Constitution offers the Utilities no greater protection than does the State Constitution with respect to the right to a neutral decision-maker, see Appeal of Grimm, 141 N.H. 719, 720-22 (1997); Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46-47 (1975), and the right to an opportunity to be heard, see Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 168-69 (1975); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970).
  • Appeal of the Town of Nottingham 904 A.2d 582 N.H. 2006
    It first argues, quoting Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests v. Site Evaluation Committee, 115 N.H. 163, 168 (1975), that “[wjhere issues of fact are presented for resolution by an administrative agency due process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” That case held, however, that the statute in question, “[i]n requiring ‘public hearings’ on applications for site and facility,...
  • Appeal of the Londonderry Neighborhood Coalition 761 A.2d 426 N.H. 2000
    “Where issues of fact are presented for resolution by an administrative agency due process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 168, 337 A.2d 778, 783 (1975).
  • Cormier v. Town of Danville Zoning Board of Adjustment 710 A.2d 401 N.H. 1998
    While we have described a state administrative agency’s determination of adverse effect on “historic sites” as a “general discretionary finding[],” we have recognized that “the law demands that findings be more specific than a mere recitation of conclusions.” Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 173-74, 337 A.2d 778, 787 (1975).
  • Appeal of Net Realty Holding Trust 519 A.2d 313 N.H. 1986
    v. Comm’n of Ins., 122 N.H. 268, 273, *803 444 A.2d 508, 510 (1982); Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 173, 337 A.2d 778, 786 (1975); RSA 541-A.-19 (Supp. 1986).
  • Appeal of Monsieur Henri Wines, Ltd. 512 A.2d 415 N.H. 1986
    “A reviewing court needs findings of basic facts to understand administrative decisions and to ascertain whether the facts and issues considered sustain the ultimate result reached.” Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 173, 337 A.2d 778, 786 (1975).
  • Howard v. Howard 469 A.2d 1318 N.H. 1983
    In Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 173, 337 A.2d 778, 786 (1975), we stated that “[w]hile this court has repeatedly recognized the need for basic findings supported by the record, it has not mandated detailed and specific reasons for the basic findings.” See also Pugliese v. Town of Northwood, 119 N.H. 743, 749, 408 A.2d 113, 117 (1979).
  • Appeal of Public Service Co. 454 A.2d 435 N.H. 1982
    Co. v. Town of Hampton, 120 N.H. 68, 72, 411 A.2d 164, 166-67 (1980); Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 170-71, 337 A.2d 778, 784-85 (1975).
  • Appeal of the Society for the Protection of the Environment 449 A.2d 1205 N.H. 1982
    None of the petitioners here challenged that portion of the certificate when it was appealed to us, see Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 337 A.2d 778 (1975), and that portion of the decision is final.
  • Appeal of The Portsmouth Trust Co. 423 A.2d 603 N.H. 1980
    Security, 118 N.H. at 679, 394 A.2d at 831; see Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 168, 337 A.2d 778, 783 (1975).
  • Manchester Airport Authority v. Romano 412 A.2d 1020 N.H. 1980
    e.g., Colburn v. Personnel Commission, 118 N.H. 60, 382 A.2d 907 (1978); Society for the Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 337 A.2d 778 (1975).
  • Appeal of the Incorporators of the Manchester Savings Bank 412 A.2d 421 N.H. 1980
    Comm’n, 117 N.H. 1038, 1043, 381 A.2d 745, 748 (1977); Society for the Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 171-75, 337 A.2d 778, 785-87 (1975).
  • Appeal of Nationwide Insurance 411 A.2d 1107 N.H. 1980
    RSA 400-A:19 II (Supp. 1977); Legislative Utility Consumers’ Council v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 118 N.H. 93, 100, 383 A.2d 89, 93 (1978); see Society for the Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Eval.
  • Public Service Co. v. Town of Hampton 411 A.2d 164 N.H. 1980
    Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Commission, 115 N.H. 163, 337 A.2d 778 (1975).
  • Pugliese v. Town of Northwood Planning Board 408 A.2d 113 N.H. 1979
    “While this court has repeatedly recognized the need for basic findings supported by the record, it has not mandated detailed and specific reasons for the basic findings.” Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests v. Site Evaluation Committee, 115 N.H. 163,173, 337 A.2d 778, 786 (1975).
  • Legislative Utility Consumers' Council v. Public Service Co. 402 A.2d 626 N.H. 1979
    RSA 162-F:8; Society For the Protection of New Hampshire Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 167, 337 A.2d 778, 782-83 (1975).
  • LEGISLATIVE UTIL. CONSUMERS'COUNCIL v. Granite State Elec. Co. 402 A.2d 644 N.H. 1979
    Co. v. State, 95 N.H. 353, 359, 64 A.2d 9, 15 (1949); accord, Soc’y For The Protection of New Hampshire Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 173, 337 A.2d 778, 786 (1975).
  • Royer v. State Department of Employment Security 394 A.2d 828 N.H. 1978
    Burhoe v. Whaland, 116 N.H. 222, 356 A.2d 658 (1976); Soc'y for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Committee, 115 N.H. 163, 337 A.2d 778 (1975).
  • St. Johnsbury Trucking Co. v. State 385 A.2d 215 N.H. 1978
    Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 174, 337 A.2d 778, 787 (1975).
  • Ingersoll v. Williams 383 A.2d 1119 N.H. 1978
    On remand, we direct the court’s attention to our decisions in Foote v. State Personnel Comm’n, 116 N.H. 145, 355 A.2d 412 (1976); Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 337 A.2d 778 (1975); Alcorn v. Rochester Zoning Bd.
  • Colburn v. Personnel Commission 382 A.2d 907 N.H. 1978
    Society for the Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 172-73, 337 A.2d 778, 786 (1975); see Foote v. State Personnel Comm’n, 116 N.H. at 148-49, 355 A.2d at 414.
  • New England Household Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission 381 A.2d 745 N.H. 1977
    Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site *1043 Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 171-75, 337 A.2d 778, 785-87 (1975).
  • New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration v. Public Employee Labor Relations Board 380 A.2d 1085 N.H. 1977
    Foote v. State Personnel Comm’n, 116 N.H. 145, 148, 355 A.2d 412, 414 (1976); Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm’n, 115 N.H. 163, 172-74, 337 A.2d 778, 786-87 (1975).
  • Public Service Co. v. Town of Ashland 377 A.2d 124 N.H. 1977
    Berke v. Griffin, 116 N.H. 760, 367 A.2d 583 (1976); see Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 173, 337 A.2d 778, 786-87 (1975).
  • Demoulas v. Town of Salem 367 A.2d 588 N.H. 1976
    Mann v. Nashua Fournier v. Nashua decided in Vickerry Realty Co. Trust v. Nashua, 116 N.H. 536, 364 A.2d 626 (1976); Trustees of Lexington Realty Trust v. Concord supra; Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 174-75, 337 A.2d 778, 787 (1975).
  • Economides v. Economides 357 A.2d 871 N.H. 1976
    Comer v. Comer, 110 N.H. 505, 507, 272 A.2d 586, 587 (1970); see Society for the Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 173, 337 A.2d 778, 786 (1975).
  • Foote v. State Personnel Commission 355 A.2d 412 N.H. 1976
    Society for the Protection of N.H. Forests v. Site Evaluation Comm., 115 N.H. 163, 337 A.2d 778 (1975); Trustees of Lexington Realty Trust v. City of Concord, 115 N.H. 131, 336 A.2d 591 (1975).
  • Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests v. Water Supply & Pollution Control Commission 337 A.2d 788 N.H. 1975
    that the nuclear plant would “not have an unreasonable adverse effect on esthetics, historic sites, air and water quality, the natural environment and the public health and safety.” Pursuant to RSA 541:3,:6, the plaintiffs appealed the decision of the site evaluation committee resulting in the decision in Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests & a. v. Site Evaluation Committee, 115 N.H. 163, 337 A.2d 778 (1975).