Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Kimball v. New Hampshire Board of Accountancy, 391 A.2d 888.

21 citing documents.

Appeal of Campaign for Ratepayers' Rights 27 A.3d 726 N.H. 2011
“Rules adopted by State boards and agencies may not add to, detract from, or in any way modify statutory law.” Kimball v. N.H. Bd.
Appeal of Mays 20 A.3d 232 N.H. 2011
Appeal of N.H. Dep’t of Transportation, 152 N.H. at 571; see also Kimball v. N.H. Bd.
Tuttle v. MED. MAL. JOINT UNDERWRITING 992 A.2d 624 N.H. 2010
In Re Alexis O. 959 A.2d 176 N.H. 2008
Rules adopted by administrative entities “may not add to, detract from, or in any way modify statutory law.” Kimball v. N.H. Bd.
Appeal of New Hampshire Department of Transportation 883 A.2d 272 N.H. 2005
This rule-making authority permits “boards to fill in details to effectuate the purpose of the statute.” Kimball v. N.H. Bd.
In re Strandell 562 A.2d 173 N.H. 1989
If the Division acted “beyond the limited discretion granted by a valid enactment, the rule is invalid.” In re Richard M., supra at 17, 497 A.2d at 1203 (quoting Kimball v. N.H. Bd.
Suburban Realty, Inc. v. Albin 559 A.2d 1332 N.H. 1989
of Accountancy, 118 N.H. 567, 568, 391 A.2d 888, 889 (1978) (citation omitted).
Rich v. Powell 544 A.2d 29 N.H. 1988
In determining whether or not an administrative rule is valid, our inquiry is limited to whether the department only acted to “fill in details to effectuate the purpose of the statute.” Opinion of the Justices, 121 N.H. 552, 557, 431 A.2d 783, 786 (1981) (quoting Kimball v. N.H. Bd.
Appeal of Monsieur Henri Wines, Ltd. 512 A.2d 415 N.H. 1986
Rulemaking authority is granted to allow administrative agencies to effectuate their statutory purposes by “fill[ing] in [the] details,” and “[i]ndeed, a legislative enactment that gives a board greater discretion than that needed to ‘fill in details’ is invalid.” Kimball v. N.H. Bd.
In re Richard M. 497 A.2d 1200 N.H. 1985
of Accountancy, 118 N.H. 567, 568, 391 A.2d 888, 889 (1978); Reno v. Hopkinton, 115 N.H. 706, 707, 349 A.2d 585, 586 (1975).
Appeal of Plantier 494 A.2d 270 N.H. 1985
Certainly, one of the functions of the board is “to fill in details to effectuate the purpose of the statute.” Kimball v. N.H. Bd.
Appeal of Gallant 485 A.2d 1034 N.H. 1984
of Accountancy, 118 N.H. 567, 568, 391 A.2d 888, 889 (1978) (citing Reno v. Hopkinton, 115 N.H. 706, 707, 349 A.2d 585, 586 (1975)); Opinion of the Justices, 121 N.H. 552, 557, 431 A.2d 783, 786 (1981).
Woodman v. Perrin 474 A.2d 999 N.H. 1984
of Accountancy, 118 N.H. 567, 568, 391 A.2d 888, 889 (1978), and we will not construe an administrative rule as an attempt to do so.
Hall v. County of Hillsborough 445 A.2d 1125 N.H. 1982
of Accountancy, 118 N.H. 567, 568-69, 391 A.2d 888, 889 (1978); Harkeem v. N.H. Dep’t of Empl.
Appeal of Concord Natural Gas Corp. 433 A.2d 1291 N.H. 1981
Opinion of the Justices 431 A.2d 783 N.H. 1981
of Accountancy, 118 N.H. 567, 568, 391 A.2d 888, 889 (1978); Reno v. Hopkinton, 115 N.H. 706, 707, 349 A.2d 585, 586 (1975), and administrative rules which go beyond the filling in of details are invalid.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Whaland 430 A.2d 174 N.H. 1981
of Accountancy, 118 N.H. 567, 568, 391 A.2d 888, 889 (1978); Reno v. Hopkinton, 115 N.H. 706, 707, 349 A.2d 585, 586 (1975).
Smith Insurance v. Grievance Committee 424 A.2d 816 N.H. 1980
of Accountancy, 118 N.H. 567, 569, 391 A.2d 888, 890 (1978), quoting Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234 (1978).
Appeal of John H. 419 A.2d 1084 N.H. 1980
of Accountancy, 118 N.H. 567, 391 A.2d 888 (1978); Reno v. Hopkinton, 115 N.H. 706, 349 A.2d 585 (1975).
R. S. Audley, Inc. v. State 408 A.2d 410 N.H. 1979
We therefore hold that the commissioner or the board, in using the $100,000 exclusionary rule, acted beyond the limited discretion granted by the statute, see Kimball v. N.H. Bd.
Geldhof v. Penwood Associates 407 A.2d 822 N.H. 1979
It is not a dead letter.’’Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234, 241 (1978); Kimball v. New Hampshire Bd.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by