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 Arsenault v. Willis, 380 A.2d 264.

22 citing documents.

  • Iannelli v. Burger King Corp. 761 A.2d 417 N.H. 2000
    Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 306, 605 A.2d 208, 214 (1992); Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 984, 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977).
  • New Hampshire Division of Human Services v. Allard 690 A.2d 566 N.H. 1997
    To the extent that the non-moving party either ignores or does not dispute facts set forth in the moving party’s affidavits, they are deemed admitted for purposes of the motion.
  • New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Franklin 685 A.2d 913 N.H. 1996
    Carbur’s, Inc. v. A & S Office Concepts, Inc., 122 N.H. 421, 423, 445 A.2d 1109, 1110-11 (1982); Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 983, 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977).
  • State v. Thornton 669 A.2d 791 N.H. 1995
    CT. R. 8; Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 982, 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977) (citing State v. Doyle, 117 N.H. 789, 378 A.2d 1379 (1977)).
  • Northern New Hampshire Mental Health & Developmental Services, Inc. v. Cannell 593 A.2d 1161 N.H. 1991
    He or she “must set forth ‘specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial.’” Id.
  • Heaton v. Boulders Properties, Inc. 566 A.2d 1127 N.H. 1989
    Eastman Found., 129 N.H. 89, 92, 523 A.2d 74, 76 (1986) (citing McElroy v. Gaffney, 123 N.H. 58, 60, 457 A.2d 429, 430 (1983)), and when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, ERA Pat Demarais, supra at 92, 523 A.2d at 76 (citing Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 983, 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977)).
  • Omiya v. Castor 536 A.2d 194 N.H. 1987
    It must set forth “specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial.” Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 983, 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977); see also Proctor v. Bank of N.H., 123 N.H. 395, 464 A.2d 263 (1983).
  • Thone v. Cairo 536 A.2d 183 N.H. 1987
    “Summary judgment procedure allows a final judgment to be entered when there is no genuine issue of material fact requiring a formal trial.” Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 983, 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977).
  • ERA Pat Demarais Associates, Inc. v. Alexander Eastman Foundation 523 A.2d 74 N.H. 1986
    Under RSA 491:8-a, the trial court will grant summary judgment when it finds no genuine issue of material fact, taking the affidavits and any other evidence on file most favorable to the party opposing the motion, McElroy v. Gaffney, 123 N.H. 58, 60, 457 A.2d 429, 430 (1983), and when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
  • Baker v. Wilmot 509 A.2d 1252 N.H. 1986
    Such findings of fact exceeded the trial court’s authority on motion for summary judgment which is limited to determining whether a “genuine issue of material fact requiring a formal trial” exists.
  • D. W. Clark Road Equipment, Inc. v. Murray Walter, Inc. 469 A.2d 1326 N.H. 1983
    Armand Engineering Co., Inc. v. Adrien A. Labrie, Inc., 121 N.H. 107, 110, 427 A.2d 15, 17 (1981); Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 983, 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977).
  • Carbur's, Inc. v. a & S Office Concepts, Inc. 445 A.2d 1109 N.H. 1982
    The party opposing such a motion has the burden of contradicting the proving party’s affidavit; otherwise, the proponent’s assertions of facts will be treated as admitted.
  • Studwell v. Travelers Insurance 438 A.2d 942 N.H. 1981
    Settle v. Keene Savings Bank, 120 N.H. 827, 829, 423 A.2d 986, 987 (1980); see RSA 491:8-a (Supp. 1979); Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 983, 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977).
  • Lourie v. Keene State College 428 A.2d 902 N.H. 1981
    Armand Engineering Co., Inc. v. Labrie, Inc., 121 N.H. 107, 110, 427 A.2d 15, 16 (1981); Settle v. Keene Savings Bank, *236 120 N.H. 827, 829, 423 A.2d 986, 987 (1980); Soujanen v. Tardif, 120 N.H. 574, 576, 419 A.2d 1088, 1089 (1980); Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 983, 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977).
  • Donnelly v. Kearsarge Telephone Co. 428 A.2d 888 N.H. 1981
    ts filed, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See Armand Engineering Co., Inc. v. Labrie, Inc., 121 N.H. 107, 110, 427 A.2d 15, 16 (1981); Settle v. Keene Savings Bank, 120 N.H. 827, 829, 423 A.2d 986, 987 (1980); Suojanen v. Tardif, 120 N.H. 574, 576, 419 A.2d 1088, 1089 (1980); Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 983, 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977).
  • Armand Engineering Co., Inc. v. Adrien A. Labrie, Inc. 427 A.2d 15 N.H. 1981
    show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact [requiring trial] and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Settle v. Keene Savings Bank, 120 N.H. 827, 829, 423 A.2d 986, 987 (1980); Suojanen v. Tardif, 120 N.H. 574, 575, 419 A.2d 1088, 1089 (1980); Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Barton, 118 N.H. 195, 197, 385 A.2d 118, 119 (1978); Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 983, 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977); see Rutkauskas v. Hodgins, 120 N.H. 788, 791, 423 A.2d 291,
  • Settle v. Keene Savings Bank 423 A.2d 986 N.H. 1980
    [T]he moving party must show the absence of a triable issue and his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.” Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 983, 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977); see Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Barton, 118 N.H. 195, 197, 385 A.2d 118, 119 (1978).
  • Naylor Pipe Co. v. Murray Walter, Inc. 421 A.2d 1012 N.H. 1980
    Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 983, 380 A.2d 264, *699 266 (1977); RSA 491:8-a (Supp. 1979).
  • Morel v. Marable 412 A.2d 747 N.H. 1980
    As support for this contention, she relies upon State v. Doyle, 117 N.H. 789, 378 A.2d 1379 (1977) and Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 380 A.2d 264 (1977), as indicating this court’s policy that such piecemeal litigation is improper.
  • Dolan v. Maple Leaf Health Care Center, Inc. 402 A.2d 196 N.H. 1979
    Plaintiff’s exception was transferred by Goode, J. Although a counter-affidavit must contain more than vague and general allegations, it need not contain all the evidence on an issue.
  • Lortie v. Bois 398 A.2d 540 N.H. 1979
    RSA 491:8-a (Supp. 1977); Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977).
  • Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Barton 385 A.2d 118 N.H. 1978
    Under RSA 491:8-a (Supp. 1975) the moving party must show the absence of a triable issue of fact and his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law before summary judgment may properly be entered.