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 Board of Selectmen v. Planning Board, 383 A.2d 1122.

14 citing documents.

  • State v. Moussa 53 A.3d 630 N.H. 2012
    Board of Selectmen v. Planning Bd, 118 N.H. 150, 152-53 (1978) (noting that “implied repeal of former statutes is a disfavored doctrine in this State”).
  • Professional Fire Fighters v. Town of Wolfeboro 48 A.3d 900 N.H. 2012
    Board of Selectmen v. Planning Bd., 118 N.H. 150, 152 (1978); 2B N. Singer & J.D.
  • In re Regan 48 A.3d 920 N.H. 2012
    Board of Selectmen v. Planning Bd., 118 N.H. 150, 152-53 (1978).
  • Appeal of Campaign for Ratepayers Rights 706 A.2d 675 N.H. 1998
    “If any reasonable construction of the two statutes taken together can be found, this court will not find that there has been an implied repeal.” Board of Selectmen v. Planning Bd., 118 N.H. 150, 153, 383 A.2d 1122, 1124 (1978).
  • In re Dunlap 604 A.2d 945 N.H. 1991
    “When a conflict exists between two statutes, the later statute will control, especially when the later statute deals with a subject in a specific way and the earlier enactment treats that subject in a general fashion.” Board of Selectmen v. Planning Board, 118 N.H. 150, 152, 383 A.2d 1122, 1124 (1978); see also Petition of Public Serv.
  • In re Public Service Co. 539 A.2d 263 N.H. 1988
    “When a conflict exists between two statutes, the later statute will control, especially when the later statute deals with a subject in a specific way and the earlier enactment treats that subject in a general fashion.” Board of Selectmen v. Planning Bd., 118 N.H. 150, 152, 383 A.2d 1122, 1124 (1978).
  • Appeal of Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 497 A.2d 847 N.H. 1985
    Board of Selectmen v. Planning Bd., 118 N.H. 150, 152, 383 A.2d 1122, 1124 (1978).
  • King v. Sununu 490 A.2d 796 N.H. 1985
    Reasoning that repeal by implication was looked upon with disfavor, see Board of Selectmen v. Planning Bd., 118 N.H. 150, 152-53, 383 A.2d 1122, 1124 (1978), the court ruled that the plaintiff had the burden of establishing with evidence of convincing force that no reasonable construction of the two statutes taken together could be found.
  • Chagnon Lumber Co. v. Stone Mill Construction Corp. 474 A.2d 588 N.H. 1984
    See, e.g., Board of Selectmen v. Planning Board, 118 N.H. 150, 383 A.2d 1122 (1978); Sindt v. Gilfoyle supra.
  • Sindt v. Gilfoyle 469 A.2d 1334 N.H. 1983
    Board of Selectmen v. Planning Bd., 118 N.H. 150, 152, 383 A.2d 1122, 1124 (1978).
  • State v. Peabody 438 A.2d 305 N.H. 1981
    Board of Selectmen v. Planning Bd., 118 N.H. 150, 152, 383 A.2d 1122, 1124 (1978).
  • In the Matter of Raymond S. 430 A.2d 182 N.H. 1981
    “[I]mplied repeal of former statutes is a disfavored doctrine in this State.” Board of Selectmen v. Planning Bd., 118 N.H. 150, 152-53, 383 A.2d 1122, 1124 (1978).
  • Gazzola v. Clements 411 A.2d 147 N.H. 1980
    of Selectmen of the Town of Merrimack v. Planning Bd., 118 N.H. 150, 383 A.2d 1122 (1978).
  • Arnold v. City of Manchester 409 A.2d 1322 N.H. 1979
    Board of Selectmen v. Planning Bd., 118 N.H 150, 152-53, 383 A.2d 1122, 1124 (1978).