Cited by
Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital, 378 A.2d 1138.
-
Susan Chase Gage, of the Estate of Margaret C. Gage v. State of New Hampshire
N.H. 2015
Kelleher v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., 152 N.H. 813, 825 (2005).” See also Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 742 (1977) (although the correct formulation of the discovery rule poses a question of law, the application of it presents a question of fact).
-
Bock v. Lundstrom
573 A.2d 882
N.H. 1990
Thus, the standard of review on appeal from a master’s recommendation is not “‘whether on the reported evidence, the members of *165 this court would find as the master has found, but whether any reasonable man could so find.’” Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 744, 378 A.2d 1138, 1141 (1977) (citation omitted).
-
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
549 A.2d 1187
N.H. 1988
1985); Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 743, 378 A.2d 1138, 1140-41 (1977); Raymond v. Eli Lilly & Co., 117 N.H. 164, 170-71, 371 A.2d 170, 173-74 (1977).
-
Bartlett v. Dumaine
523 A.2d 1
N.H. 1986
On appeal, we will sustain the master’s findings of fact if, on the reported evidence, “any reasonable [person] could so find.” Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 744, 378 A.2d 1138, 1141 (1977).
-
Heath v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
464 A.2d 288
N.H. 1983
The rule is premised on “the manifest unfairness of foreclosing an injured person’s cause of action before he has had even a reasonable opportunity to discover its existence.” Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 741-42, 378 A.2d 1138, 1139-40 (1977).
-
French v. R. S. Audley, Inc.
464 A.2d 279
N.H. 1983
Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 741-42, 378 A.2d 1138, 1139-40 (1977).
-
Meredith v. Fisher
435 A.2d 536
N.H. 1981
f review in an appeal from a master’s recommendation is that the findings and rulings will be upheld unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.” Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981) (citing Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 421, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980) and Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 742, 378 A.2d 1138, 1140 (1977)).
-
Merrimack Industrial Trust v. First Nat. Bank of Boston
427 A.2d 500
N.H. 1981
whether on the reported evidence, the members of this court would find as the master has found, but whether any reasonable man could so find.” Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 744, 378 A.2d 1138, 1141 (1977), quoting Weeks v. Morin, 85 N.H. 9, 12, 153 A. 471, 472 (1931).
-
Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Bros. Construction, Inc.
427 A.2d 505
N.H. 1981
Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 421, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980); Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 742, 378 A.2d 1138, 1140 (1977).
-
City of Portsmouth v. Meaney
426 A.2d 21
N.H. 1981
Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 742, 378 A.2d 1138, 1140 (1977).
-
Carson v. Maurer
424 A.2d 825
N.H. 1980
The rule is premised on “the manifest unfairness of foreclosing an injured person’s cause of action before he has had even a reasonable opportunity to discover its existence.” Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H 739, 741-42, 378 A.2d 1138, 1139-40 (1977).
-
Hynes v. Whitehouse
415 A.2d 876
N.H. 1980
Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 378 A.2d 1138 (1977).
-
Aetna Insurance v. American Ski Corp.
409 A.2d 1356
N.H. 1979
See, e.g., Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 387 A.2d 1169 (1978); Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 378 A.2d 1138 (1977).
-
Sundell v. Town of New London
409 A.2d 1315
N.H. 1979
Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital, 117 N.H. 739, 744, 378 A.2d 1138, 1141 (1977).
-
Cataldo v. Grappone
381 A.2d 1194
N.H. 1977
whether on the reported evidence, the members of this court would find as the master has found, but whether any reasonable man could so find.” Brown v. Hitchcock Memorial Hospital, 117 N.H. 739, 378 A.2d 1138 (1977); Weeks v. Morin, 85 N.H. 9, 12, 153 A. 471, 472 (1931).