Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 404 A.2d 294.

15 citing documents.

  • David Pelletier & a. v. Town of Rye N.H. 2023
    3 particular matter to the Court for adjudication.” Benjamin v. Aroostook Medical Center, Inc., 57 F.3d 101, 104 (1st Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted); see also Hannaford Bros. Co. v. Town of Bedford, 164 N.H. 764, 770 (2013) (“[W]hether an appealing party is a ‘proper party’ is a question ‘separate from the merits of the appeal.’” (quoting Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 545 (1979))).
  • CBDA Development, LLC v. Town of Thornton 137 A.3d 1107 N.H. 2016
    Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 544 (1979) (noting that “[t]he interests of the parties and the type of issues presented in a site plan review do not differ substantially from those present in the granting of a special exception or a variance” before a zoning board).
  • Hannaford Bros. v. Town of Bedford 64 A.3d 951 N.H. 2013
    Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 545 (1979).
  • Golf Course Investors of NH, LLC v. Town of Jaffrey 20 A.3d 846 N.H. 2011
    Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 544-45 (1979); Johnson v. Town of Wolfeboro Planning Bd., 157 N.H. 94, 99 (2008).
  • Johnson v. Town of Wolfeboro Planning Board 945 A.2d 13 N.H. 2008
    The Johnsons argue that they enjoy automatic standing as abutters, or, alternatively, that they have standing under the analysis set forth in Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 545 (1979).
  • Joyce v. Town of Weare 937 A.2d 919 N.H. 2007
    Corp. v. City of Dover Sambo’s Rest, 119 N.H. 541, 545 (1979) (interpreting the predecessor to RSA 677:15); Price v. Planning Board, 120 N.H. 481, 484 (1980), we have never gone so far as to allow standing where litigants have no direct interest in the outcome of their appeals.
  • Goldstein v. Town of Bedford 910 A.2d 1158 N.H. 2006
    ‘Whether a party has a sufficient interest in the outcome of a planning board or zoning board proceeding to have standing is a factual determination in *396 each case.” Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 544-45 (1979).
  • Thomas v. Town of Hooksett 903 A.2d 963 N.H. 2006
    Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 545 (1979).
  • Smagula v. Town of Hooksett 834 A.2d 333 N.H. 2003
    Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 544-45 (1979); cf. Borough of Cresskill v. Borough of Dumont, 104 A.2d 441, 446 (N.J.
  • Matarese v. New Hampshire Municipal Ass'n Property-Liability Insurance Trust, Inc. 791 A.2d 175 N.H. 2002
    The stability of the law does not require the continuance of recognized error.” Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 544 (1979) (citations, brackets and quotations omitted).
  • Overruled In re Preston 780 A.2d 1285 N.H. 2001
    Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 544 (1979); Amoskeag &c. Co. v. Dartmouth College, 89 N.H. 471, 475-76 (1938).
  • Caspersen v. Town of Lyme 661 A.2d 759 N.H. 1995
    Bee Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 544, 404 A.2d 294, 296-97 (1979).
  • Nautilus of Exeter, Inc. v. Town of Exeter 656 A.2d 407 N.H. 1995
    Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 544-45, 404 A.2d 294, 296 (1979).
  • Silver Brothers, Inc. v. Wallin 455 A.2d 1011 N.H. 1982
    see Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 542-44, 404 A.2d 294, 295-96 (1979); New Hampshire Bankers Ass’n v. Nelson, 113 N.H. 127, 129, 302 A.2d 810, 811-12 (1973).
  • Price v. Planning Board 417 A.2d 997 N.H. 1980
    Although acknowledging that our decision last term in Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 404 A.2d 294 (1979) expanded the.class of persons possessing standing to appeal planning board actions, the board nevertheless argues that these plaintiffs’ interest is too remote under even the new standard.