Cited by

[¶52] We first address the respondents’ claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

[¶11] We first address Doe’s claims under the State Constitution, and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We consider the defendant’s argument under the New Hampshire Constitution first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and refer to federal law only if it aids our analysis.

We first address the defendants’ claims under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address Port City’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We first address K.S.’s arguments under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

e plaintiff’s constitutional parenting rights, despite the allegation that the Policy encourages school officials to affirmatively conceal her child’s open and public gender identity transition in school from her?” [¶10] The plaintiff’s argument is based upon the State Constitution; accordingly, we base our decision solely on the State Constitution and cite federal cases for guidance only.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely on federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We first consider the respondent’s arguments under the State Constitution.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We address the defendant’s argument first under the New Hampshire Constitution.

We first address the defendant’s arguments under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid in our analysis.

State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 233 (1983) (“Although in interpreting the New Hampshire Constitution we have often followed and agreed with the federal treatment of parallel provisions of the federal document, we never have considered ourselves bound to adopt the federal interpretations.”); Sutton, supra at 125 (observing that “state courts remain

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution.

Because the defendant prevails on this issue under the State Constitution, we need not address his claim under the Federal Constitution.

We first address the defendant’s arguments under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the State’s argument under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address Marino’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first consider his arguments under the State Constitution and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

We first address her claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We first consider the defendant’s argument under the State Constitution and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

We first address his claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address whether the motor vehicle stop violated the State Constitution, relying upon federal law merely to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-33 (1983) (when it is undisputed that the protections of the New Hampshire Constitution are implicated in a particular case, “we will first examine the New Hampshire Constitution and only then, if we find no protected rights thereunder, will we examine the Federal Constitution to determine whether it provides gre

We first address the defendant’s argument under the State Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

We first consider the defendant’s argument under the State Constitution, using federal cases only to aid in our analysis.

Following our standard practice, we first address the defendant’s argument under the State Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

We first consider the defendant’s argument under the State Constitution, using federal cases only to aid in our analysis.

Following our standard practice, we first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely on federal law only to aid our analysis.

Consistent with our long-recognized practice, we first examine the constitutional competency of counsel’s performance under our State Constitution.

We first address the State’s argument under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address their arguments under the State Constitution and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

We address his arguments under the State Constitution first, citing federal law only to aid in our analysis.

II Because the State Constitution provides greater protection to a criminal defendant with respect to the voluntariness of confessions than the Federal Constitution, State v. Carroll, 138 N.H. 687, 690-91 (1994), we decide this case under the State Constitution with reference to federal cases only to aid our analysis, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232 (1983).

Rather, the State’s lament is that Guare does not strictly apply the framework applicable to constitutional challenges of voting regulations employed under federal law and that we should, accordingly, “set Guare aside and realign [our] voting jurisprudence with federal law.” But see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 233 (1983) (explaining that when interpreting the New Hampshire Constitution, we have never considered ourselves bound to adopt federal interpretations).

We first address his claim under the State Constitution and rely on federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address her claims under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

It is important to note, however, that “when this court cites federal or other State court opinions in construing provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution or statutes, we rely on those precedents merely for guidance and do not consider our results bound by those decisions.” State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 233 (1983).

We first address the State’s argument under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.