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 Faust v. General Motors Corp., 377 A.2d 885.

13 citing documents.

  • Emerson v. Bentwood 769 A.2d 403 N.H. 2001
    “Under our jury system, reasonably disputable issues of fact are to be resolved by the jury.” Faust v. General Motors Corp., 117 N.H. 679, *258 684 (1977) (quotation omitted).
  • Marcotte v. Timberlane/Hampstead School District 733 A.2d 394 N.H. 1999
    “The fact that the jury deliberated and returned a verdict without requesting any clarification of the charge is a strong indication that they were not confused.” Faust v. General Motors Corp., 117 N.H. 679, 686, 377 A.2d 885, 889 (1977).
  • Bronson v. Hitchcock Clinic 677 A.2d 665 N.H. 1996
    .” Faust v. General Motors Corp., 117 N.H. 679, 684, 377 A.2d 885, 888 (1977) (quotation omitted).
  • Martin v. Wentworth-Douglass Hospital 536 A.2d 174 N.H. 1987
    DiPietro v. Lavigne, 97 N.H. 474, 476, 92 A.2d 914, 916 (1952); Allison v. Railroad, 88 N.H. 420, 422, 190 A. 127, 128 (1937) (mere scintilla of evidence inadequate to survive motion for nonsuit); see also Faust v. General Motors Corp., 117 N.H. 679, 685, 377 A.2d 885, 888 (1977) (scintilla of evidence insufficient to satisfy burden of evidentiary production).
  • Weldy v. Town of Kingston 514 A.2d 1257 N.H. 1986
    Faust v. General Motors Corp., 117 N.H. 679, 683, 377 A.2d 885, 887 (1977).
  • Gagnon v. Crane 498 A.2d 718 N.H. 1985
    Lindberg v. Swenson, 95 N.H. 184, 186, 60 A.2d 458, 459 (1948); see also Faust v. General Motors Corp., 117 N.H. 679, 686, 377 A.2d 885, 889 (1977).
  • State v. Charpentier 489 A.2d 594 N.H. 1985
    Faust v. General Motors Corp., 117 N.H. 679, 683, 377 A.2d 885, 887-88 (1977).
  • Rogers v. Pub. Serv. Co. of NH 437 A.2d 263 N.H. 1981
    Relying on Faust v. General Motors Corp., 117 N.H. 679, 377 A.2d 885 (1977), he reasons and concludes that for the jury to find that the maple tree was other than climbable, it would have had to “[neglect] to consider the facts, and [overlook] prominent and essential points in the evidence.
  • Bernier v. Demers 427 A.2d 514 N.H. 1981
    Lindberg v. Swenson, 95 *219 N.H. 184, 187, 60 A.2d 458, 460 (1948); see Faust v. General Motors Corp., 117 N.H. 679, 686, 377 A.2d 885, 889 (1977).
  • Bellacome v. Bailey 426 A.2d 451 N.H. 1981
    Faust v. General Motors Corp., 117 N.H. 679, 686, 377 A.2d 885, 889 (1977).
  • Brigham v. Hudson Motors, Inc. 392 A.2d 130 N.H. 1978
    Mitchell v. Dover, 98 N.H. 285, 99 A.2d 409 (1953); Eichel v. Payeur, 107 N.H. 194, 219 A.2d 287 (1966); Hayes v. State, 109 N.H. 353, 252 A.2d 431 (1969); LeClerc v. Gray, 112 N.H. 430, 298 A.2d 116 (1972); Faust v. General Motors Corp., 117 N.H. 679, 377 A.2d 885 (1977).
  • Kierstead v. Betley Chevrolet-Buick, Inc. 389 A.2d 429 N.H. 1978
    Our recent case of Faust v. General Motors Corp., 117 N.H. 679, 683, 377 A.2d 885, 888 (1977), could be read as suggesting that there is some question “whether the Bennett rule or the Wisutskie rule is the better statement of our law.
  • DeFillipo v. Testa 378 A.2d 738 N.H. 1977
    Faust v. General Motors Corp., 117 N.H. 679, 377 A.2d 885 (1977).