Cited by

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

698 citing documents.

State v. Hofland 857 A.2d 1271 N.H. 2004
We address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first, citing federal law only to aid in our analysis.
State v. Sousa 855 A.2d 1284 N.H. 2004
We first address this issue under the State Constitution and cite federal opinions for guidance only.
State v. Wiggin 855 A.2d 1250 N.H. 2004
We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), citing federal opinions for guidance only, id.
Saviano v. Director, N.H. Division of Motor Vehicles 855 A.2d 1278 N.H. 2004
He asserts that the officer’s advice regarding the PBT “would have led a reasonable person to believe that the result of the PBT would not be used against him,” and that his advice was “lacking in fundamental fairness and offensive to the universal sense of fair play.” ■ We begin by analyzing this issue under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), citing federal authority only to aid in our analysis, id., at 233.
State v. Moore 855 A.2d 442 N.H. 2004
The defendant argues that the trooper “ordered her out of the truck in which she was a passenger” without any “articulable, case-specific reason to do so.” Because the defendant relies solely upon the State Constitution, *290 we cite federal authority for guidance only, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 233 (1983).
State v. Hearns 855 A.2d 549 N.H. 2004
Assuming without deciding that the defendant’s claim has been preserved, we first address the defendant’s argument under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and cite federal opinions for guidance only.
State v. Nadler 855 A.2d 490 N.H. 2004
We first address the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.
State v. Zwicker 855 A.2d 415 N.H. 2004
We first address his three constitutional claims under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and cite federal authority for guidance only, id.
State v. Ellsworth 855 A.2d 474 N.H. 2004
State v. Haines, 142 N.H. 692, 701 (1998); see also State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232 (1983).
State v. Dowman 855 A.2d 524 N.H. 2004
We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.
State v. McKinnon-Andrews 846 A.2d 1198 N.H. 2004
We first address his claim under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and cite federal authority for guidance only, id.
State v. Brenes 846 A.2d 1211 N.H. 2004
We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and cite federal opinions for guidance only, id.
State v. Wellington 846 A.2d 1171 N.H. 2004
We first address the defendant’s claims under the New Hampshire Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.
Anderson v. Smith 846 A.2d 1165 N.H. 2004
We first address her claims under the State Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.
State v. Belton 846 A.2d 526 N.H. 2004
State v. Fleetwood, 149 N.H. 396, 402 (2003); see also State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232 (1983).
State v. Sleeper 846 A.2d 545 N.H. 2004
We first address the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and cite federal opinions for guidance only.
State v. Stern 846 A.2d 64 N.H. 2004
We rely upon federal cases only to aid our analysis.
In re Sandra H. 846 A.2d 513 N.H. 2004
Having clarified our analysis under the State Constitution, we now address the respondent’s claim under the State Constitution, citing federal opinions for guidance only.
State v. Velez 842 A.2d 97 N.H. 2004
We first address the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution and cite federal opinions for guidance only.
State v. Kidder 843 A.2d 312 N.H. 2004
We first address his claim under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and cite federal authority for guidance only.
State v. Rezk 840 A.2d 758 N.H. 2004
We first address the defendant’s arguments under the State Constitution.
State v. Reno 840 A.2d 786 N.H. 2004
On appeal, the defendant argues that “[b]ecause Richter is inapplicable, and the anonymous tip Cebollero relied upon to effect the stop was legally insufficient, the stop violated Reno’s [State and federal] constitutional right[s] to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” We first address the defendant’s claims under our State Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.
State v. Turmel 838 A.2d 1279 N.H. 2003
We first address the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and cite federal opinions for guidance only.
State v. Thomas 840 A.2d 803 N.H. 2003
We first address his claim under the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and cite federal opinions for guidance only, see id.
HippoPress, LLC v. SMG 837 A.2d 347 N.H. 2003
We first consider the parties’ contentions *308 under the New Hampshire Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), citing decisions of the federal courts only to aid in our analysis.
State v. Allen 837 A.2d 324 N.H. 2003
We first address the issue under the New Hampshire Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.
Bayson Properties, Inc. v. City of Lebanon 834 A.2d 202 N.H. 2003
We first address their claim under the State Constitution, relying upon federal opinions for guidance only.
Followed State v. Melvin 834 A.2d 247 N.H. 2003
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 235 (1983); State v. Tallard, 149 N.H. 183, 186 (2003).
State v. Goss 834 A.2d 316 N.H. 2003
We first address the defendant’s claim under our State Constitution and cite federal cases for guidance only.
State v. MacElman 834 A.2d 322 N.H. 2003
We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution.
State v. Davis 828 A.2d 293 N.H. 2003
We first address his claim under the State Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.
State v. Plch 826 A.2d 534 N.H. 2003
In considering each of the defendant’s State and Federal Constitutional claims, we first address his claims under our State Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.
State v. Spencer 826 A.2d 546 N.H. 2003
We first address each of the defendant’s arguments under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-33 (1983), and cite federal opinions only to aid in our analysis.
Estate of Robitaille v. New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration 827 A.2d 981 N.H. 2003
We consider their claim first under the State Constitution, relying upon federal decisions only for guidance.
In re Nelson 825 A.2d 501 N.H. 2003
We address the defendant’s State Constitutional claim first, citing federal law only to aid in our analysis.
State v. Fleetwood 824 A.2d 1061 N.H. 2003
Id.; see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232 (1983).
State v. Porelle 822 A.2d 562 N.H. 2003
We address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first, citing federal law only to aid in our analysis.
State v. Foote 821 A.2d 1072 N.H. 2003
We consider the defendant’s argument under the State Constitution first.
State v. Coombs 821 A.2d 1030 N.H. 2003
We consider the defendant’s arguments under the State Constitution first.
State v. Denoncourt 821 A.2d 997 N.H. 2003
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232 (1983); Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).
State v. Higgins 821 A.2d 964 N.H. 2003
We first address the defendant’s argument under our State Constitution.
State v. Locke 813 A.2d 1182 N.H. 2002
We address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first, citing federal law only to aid in our analysis.
State v. Cook 813 A.2d 480 N.H. 2002
V. We consider the defendant’s argument first under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), relying upon federal decisions only for guidance.
State v. Hall 813 A.2d 501 N.H. 2002
We address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first, citing federal law only to aid in our analysis.
State v. Roy 814 A.2d 169 N.H. 2002
Therefore, we will examine the constitutional competency of counsel’s performance under the State Constitution only, and rely upon federal case law only for guidance.
State v. Glodgett 813 A.2d 444 N.H. 2002
We first address the defendant’s argument under our State Constitution, citing federal authority only to aid our analysis.
State v. Chrisicos 813 A.2d 513 N.H. 2002
We address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first, citing federal law only to aid in our analysis.
State v. Hall 808 A.2d 55 N.H. 2002
Accordingly, we do not engage in a separate federal analysis.
State v. Mitchell 808 A.2d 62 N.H. 2002
Similarly, because the New Hampshire Constitution is at least as protective of the defendant’s due process rights as the Fourteenth Amendment, cf. Knowles v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 140 N.H. 387, 389 (1995), we do not engage in a separate federal analysis.
State v. Bader 808 A.2d 12 N.H. 2002
We first address his claim under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and look to the principles of fundamental fairness, see State v. Graf, 143 N.H. 294, 302 (1999).