Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Ball, 471 A.2d 347.

698 citing documents.

State v. Crate 686 A.2d 318 N.H. 1996
We first address the defendant’s State constitutional arguments, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), citing federal law only as an aid to our analysis, State v. Lucius, 140 N.H. 60, 63, 663 A.2d 605, 609 (1995).
State v. MacLeod 685 A.2d 473 N.H. 1996
We first address the defendant’s arguments under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing decisions to the extent that they rely upon federal law only as an aid to our analysis, see id.
State v. Berrocales 681 A.2d 95 N.H. 1996
We address the defendant’s claim first under the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), and “[w]here, as in the instant case, federal law is not more favorable to the defendant, we make no separate federal analysis.” State v. Davis, 139 N.H. 185, 189, 650 A.2d 1386, 1388 (1994).
State v. Smith 681 A.2d 1215 N.H. 1996
We affirm the court’s ruling based on our interpretation of the State Constitution.
State v. Weeks 681 A.2d 86 N.H. 1996
We address the defendant’s claim first under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), considering cases from the federal courts and courts of other States only as an analytical aid, State v. Grant-Chase, 140 N.H. 264, 266, 665 A.2d 380, 382 (1995), cert.
State v. Quezada 681 A.2d 79 N.H. 1996
We address the defendant’s claim first under the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), relying on federal cases only as an aid to our analysis, State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).
State v. Pinkham 679 A.2d 589 N.H. 1996
We decide this case based on our interpretation of the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using federal law only as a guide to our analysis, see State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).
State v. Hood 679 A.2d 594 N.H. 1996
We address the defendant’s argument first under the New Hampshire Constitution, referring to federal cases only insofar as they provide us with guidance.
State v. Anderson 679 A.2d 583 N.H. 1996
We analyze his claim first under the New Hampshire Constitution, citing federal cases only as an aid to our analysis.
State v. Roach 677 A.2d 157 N.H. 1996
We will address the issue raised under the State Constitution independently, referring to federal cases only for their guidance in analyzing and deciding the State issue.
State v. Vadnais 677 A.2d 155 N.H. 1996
We will address the issue raised under the State Constitution independently, referring to federal cases only for their guidance in analyzing and deciding the State issue.
State v. Seymour 673 A.2d 786 N.H. 1996
We decide this question under the State Constitution independently.
State v. Guenzel 671 A.2d 545 N.H. 1996
We will address the issue raised under the State Constitution independently, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), referring to federal cases only “for their guidance in analyzing and deciding the State issue[].” State v. Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. 23, 26, 622 A.2d 1245, 1246 (1993); see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).
State v. Johnson 669 A.2d 222 N.H. 1995
We analyze the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution first, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983), and reach his federal claim only if the Federal Constitution provides greater protection.
State v. Thornton 669 A.2d 791 N.H. 1995
We address the defendant’s arguments first under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), considering federal law only as an analytical aid, State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).
State v. Paquin 668 A.2d 47 N.H. 1995
We begin by considering the defendant’s State constitutional claim, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing federal law only as an aid to our analysis.
State v. Roy 668 A.2d 41 N.H. 1995
We base our decision on the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), and cite federal law only to aid our analysis.
Appeal of Dell 668 A.2d 1024 N.H. 1995
We address the petitioner’s State constitutional claim first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing federal law only if it aids our analysis.
State v. Fecteau 667 A.2d 1384 N.H. 1995
We will address the question under the State Constitution independently, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), referring to federal cases only for their assistance in analyzing the State issue.
State v. Justus 666 A.2d 1353 N.H. 1995
We address the defendant’s claims first under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), considering federal law only as an analytical aid, State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).
Knowles v. Warden, State Prison 666 A.2d 972 N.H. 1995
We analyze his claim first under the State Constitution.
State v. Westover 666 A.2d 1344 N.H. 1995
As is our duty, we begin with an analysis under our State Constitution.
Wellington v. Commissioner, Department of Corrections 666 A.2d 969 N.H. 1995
We address the issue under the State Constitution independently, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), relying on federal authority only as it is helpful in considering the State issue.
State v. Laforest 665 A.2d 1083 N.H. 1995
We analyze his claim under the State Constitution first, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), citing federal cases only as they are useful to our analysis, State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).
State v. Grant-Chase 665 A.2d 380 N.H. 1995
In deciding this case, we first look to our State Constitution, and then, if necessary, to the Federal Constitution to determine whether it provides the defendant with greater protection.
Baxter International, Inc. v. State 665 A.2d 350 N.H. 1995
We first analyze the plaintiffs’ argument under our State Constitution.
State v. Melanson 665 A.2d 338 N.H. 1995
We address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), and because federal law is not more favorable to the defendant in this area, see Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990); State v. Kennison, 134 N.H. 243, 590 A.2d 1099 (1991), we need not analyze her federal constitutional claim, State v. Drewry, 139 N.H. 678, 683, 661 A.2d 1181, 1184
Cheshire Medical Center v. Holbrook 663 A.2d 1344 N.H. 1995
Because we find that the common law doctrine violates our State Constitution, we need not engage in a separate federal examination.
State v. Sanchez 663 A.2d 629 N.H. 1995
We address the question under the State Constitution independently, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), “using federal precedent only for its help in dealing with the State issue.” State v. Glidden, 127 N.H. 359, 361, 499 A.2d 1349, 1350 (1985).
State v. Lucius 663 A.2d 605 N.H. 1995
We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing federal law only as an aid to our analysis.
State v. Cassady 662 A.2d 955 N.H. 1995
We begin our analysis of this issue under the New Hampshire Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing decisions of the United States Supreme Court only as an aid to our analysis.
State v. Drewry 661 A.2d 1181 N.H. 1995
We address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), and cite federal law only as an aid to our analysis.
Caspersen v. Town of Lyme 661 A.2d 759 N.H. 1995
In deciding this case, we first look to our own State Constitution, and then, if necessary, to the Federal Constitution to determine whether it provides the plaintiffs greater rights, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), citing decisions of federal courts and courts of other jurisdictions when helpful in analyzing and deciding the State issue.
Berube v. Belhumeur 663 A.2d 598 N.H. 1995
We will assess the Belhumeurs’ due process claim under part I, article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution.
State v. Bernaby 653 A.2d 1124 N.H. 1995
We begin our analysis with an examination of the protections afforded under the New Hampshire Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), and use decisions of the United States Supreme Court only as an aid to our analysis, see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983).
In re of Abbott 653 A.2d 1113 N.H. 1995
We turn to federal case law only as an aid to our analysis.
State v. Canelo 653 A.2d 1097 N.H. 1995
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-33, 471 A.2d 347, 350-52 (1983); see also State v. Bradberry, 129 N.H. at 73, 522 A.2d at 1382 (opinion of Brock, C.J.); State v. Koppel, 127 N.H. 286, 291, 499 A.2d 977, 979-80 (1985); State v. Sidebotham, 124 N.H. 682, 686-87, 474 A.2d 1377, 1379-80 (1984); State v. Settle, 122 N.H. 214, 217-18, 447 A.2d 1
Appeal of Booker 653 A.2d 1084 N.H. 1995
Because the free speech rights of government employees are granted at least as much protection under the New Hampshire Constitution as under the United States Constitution, we make no separate federal analysis, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983), and cite federal cases as an aid to our analysis.
State v. Laurie 653 A.2d 549 N.H. 1995
In assessing this claim, we cite “decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and of courts of other jurisdictions for their helpfulness in analyzing and deciding the State issue.” State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985); see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983).
In re Smith 652 A.2d 154 N.H. 1994
We address Dr. Smith’s State constitutional claim first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing federal law only if it aids our analysis.
State v. Panzera 652 A.2d 136 N.H. 1994
We begin consideration of the defendant’s claim by examining issues raised under the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing authority from other jurisdictions solely for its helpfulness in making our own analysis.
State v. Crooker 651 A.2d 470 N.H. 1994
In deciding this case, we first look to our own State Constitution, and then if necessary to the Federal Constitution to determine whether it provides the defendant greater protection, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), citing decisions of federal courts and courts of other jurisdictions when helpful in analyzing and deciding the State issue.
State v. Davis 650 A.2d 1386 N.H. 1994
We address the defendant’s claims first under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), considering federal law only as an analytical aid, State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).
State v. Gagnon 651 A.2d 5 N.H. 1994
We address the defendant’s claim first under the State Constitution.
State v. McLellan 649 A.2d 843 N.H. 1994
We base our decision on the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), and cite federal law only to aid our analysis, see State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).
State v. Carroll 645 A.2d 82 N.H. 1994
Because the State Constitution provides greater protection to a criminal de *691 fendant with respect to the voluntariness of confessions than does the Federal Constitution, see State v. Carpentier, 132 N.H. 123, 128, 562 A.2d 181, 184 (1989), we decide this case under the State Constitution with reference to federal cases only to aid our analysis.
State v. Weir 645 A.2d 56 N.H. 1994
denied, 114 S. Ct. 309 (1993), and because we believe that the New Hampshire Constitution provides at least as much protection as does the Federal Constitution on this issue, we address the defendant’s claims under State law, looking to federal law only for guidance.
State v. Little 645 A.2d 665 N.H. 1994
We base our decision on our interpretation of the due process clause of the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), and use federal decisions only as occasional guides to our analysis, see State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).
State v. Marcano 645 A.2d 661 N.H. 1994
We begin our analysis under part I, article 15, using federal law only to aid our analysis.
State v. Reynolds 642 A.2d 1368 N.H. 1994
As the protection afforded by both provisions in this regard is the same, we decide this issue under the State Constitution with reference to federal decisions to the extent that they may aid our analysis.” See State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983); see also Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).