Cited by

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

698 citing documents.

State v. Newman 808 A.2d 7 N.H. 2002
We first address the defendant’s argument under our State Constitution, citing federal authority only to aid our analysis.
State v. Enderson 804 A.2d 448 N.H. 2002
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983); State v. Pliskaner, 128 N.H. 486, 488 (1986).
In re Shelby R. 804 A.2d 435 N.H. 2002
We first address this issue under the State Constitution.
State v. Currier 808 A.2d 527 N.H. 2002
Because Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution is at least as protective of the defendant’s rights as the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, cf. Knowles v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 140 N.H. 387, 389 (1995), and as the Fifth Amendment, see State v. Settle, 132 N.H. 626, 630 (1990), we do not engage in a separate federal analysis.
Appeal of the Office of the Consumer Advocate 803 A.2d 1054 N.H. 2002
Because Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution is at least as protective of the ratepayers’ rights as the Due Process Clause of 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. Gourlay 802 A.2d 1203 N.H. 2002
We address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first, citing federal law only to aid in our analysis.
Below v. Gardner 963 A.2d 785 N.H. 2002
Accordingly, we need not undertake a *8 separate federal analysis and we base this decision upon Part II, Article 26.
Below v. Gardner 963 A.2d 785 N.H. 2002
Accordingly, we need not undertake a separate federal analysis and we base this decision upon Part II, Article 26.
State v. Spaulding 794 A.2d 800 N.H. 2002
We address the defendant’s argument first under our State Constitution.
Douglas' Case 809 A.2d 755 N.H. 2002
We analyze her claim under the State Constitution first.
In re Guardianship of Brittany S. 792 A.2d 384 N.H. 2002
We first address her claim under the State Constitution.
State v. Jeleniewski 791 A.2d 188 N.H. 2002
We address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first, citing-federal law only to aid in our analysis.
State v. Heirtzler 789 A.2d 634 N.H. 2001
Because we uphold the trial court’s suppression order under the State Constitution, we need not undertake a separate federal constitutional analysis and look to federal caselaw for guidance only.
State v. Barnett 789 A.2d 629 N.H. 2001
Because Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution is at least as protective of the defendant’s rights as the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, cf. Knowles v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 140 N.H. 387, 389 (1995), and as the Sixth Amendment, see State v. Settle, 132 N.H. 626, 630 (1990), we do not engage in a separate federal analysis.
State v. Seavey 789 A.2d 621 N.H. 2001
We first address the defendant’s constitutional argument under the New Hampshire Constitution, citing federal cases only to aid in our analysis.
State v. Bashaw 785 A.2d 897 N.H. 2001
We next address the defendant’s argument under our State Constitution, citing federal law only to aid in our analysis.
State v. Sawyer 784 A.2d 1208 N.H. 2001
We consider the defendant’s arguments first under Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution, employing federal cases only to aid in our analysis.
State v. Marti 784 A.2d 1193 N.H. 2001
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, see State v. Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. 23, 26 (1993).
State v. Aubuchont 784 A.2d 1170 N.H. 2001
We address the State constitutional argument first, citing to federal law only as an aid to our analysis.
In re Morrill 784 A.2d 690 N.H. 2001
We analyze his claim under the State Constitution first.
State v. Dugas 782 A.2d 888 N.H. 2001
“When a defendant, as in this case, has invoked the protections of the New Hampshire Constitution, we will first address these claims.” State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226,231 (1983).
State v. Bruce 780 A.2d 1270 N.H. 2001
When a defendant asserts the protection of the Due Process Clauses of both the New Hampshire and the United States Constitutions, we first examine the State claim.
State v. Hight 781 A.2d 11 N.H. 2001
We address the defendant’s claims first under the State Constitution.
In re Jeffrey C. 781 A.2d 4 N.H. 2001
We consider the defendant’s argument first under the State Constitution.
State v. Munson 781 A.2d 1 N.H. 2001
We address the defendant’s argument first under our State Constitution, citing federal law only to aid our analysis.
State v. King 781 A.2d 1002 N.H. 2001
VI, XIV We first examine the defendant’s asser *720 tions under the New Hampshire Constitution.
Sanderson v. Town of Candia 787 A.2d 167 N.H. 2001
V, XIV We first address the plaintiff’s argument under our State Constitution, using federal law only as an aid in our analysis.
State v. Hill 781 A.2d 979 N.H. 2001
We have stated that this Court “has the power to interpret the New Hampshire Constitution as more protective of individual rights than the parallel provisions of the United States Constitution.” State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32 (1983).
Town of Nottingham v. Bonser 777 A.2d 851 N.H. 2001
We consider first the defendant’s arguments under Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), employing federal cases only to aid in our analysis.
Webster v. Town of Candia 778 A.2d 402 N.H. 2001
N, XIY *438.We first address the plaintiffs’ arguments under our State Constitution, using federal law only as an aid in our analysis.
In re Brosseau 771 A.2d 579 N.H. 2001
We first address the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution, employing federal cases only to aid in our analysis.
State v. Walton 771 A.2d 562 N.H. 2001
We first address this claim under the State Constitution employing federal cases only to aid in our analysis.
State v. Cromlish 780 A.2d 486 N.H. 2001
Cook, 135 N.H. at 660-61; State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-33 (1983).
State v. Gordon 770 A.2d 702 N.H. 2001
We address the defendant’s State constitutional claims first, referencing federal case law only as an analytical aid.
EnergyNorth Natural Gas, Inc. v. Continental Insurance 781 A.2d 969 N.H. 2001
The reasonable person standard is simply the hallmark of an objective inquiry and is used in contexts ranging from the establishment of probable cause, see, e.g., State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 235 (1983), the determination of whether a person is seized for constitutional purposes, see, e.g., State v. Cote, 129 N.H. 358, 364-65 (1987), contract interpretation, see, e.g., Smith v. Liberty Mut.
State v. Budgett 769 A.2d 351 N.H. 2001
We address the defendant’s State constitutional claims first, referencing federal case law only as an analytical aid.
State v. Wallace 772 A.2d 892 N.H. 2001
We address the defendant’s claims under our State Constitution first.
State v. McLellan 767 A.2d 953 N.H. 2001
We first analyze the defendant’s argument under our State Constitution, looking to federal law for guidance only.
State v. Finn 767 A.2d 413 N.H. 2001
We address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983).
State v. Michaud 777 A.2d 840 N.H. 2001
We address the defendant’s argument under our State Constitution, citing federal law only to aid in our analysis.
State v. Blake 766 A.2d 725 N.H. 2001
We address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first, citing federal cases only as an aid to our analysis.
State v. Haycock 766 A.2d 720 N.H. 2001
We analyze the defendant’s constitutional claims under the New Hampshire Constitution, relying on cases interpreting the Federal Constitution only to aid in our analysis.
State v. Farrell 766 A.2d 1057 N.H. 2001
' Because the Federal Constitution provides no greater protection to the defendant than the State Constitution, we address only the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution and look to federal cases for guidance only.
State v. Tucker 765 A.2d 1058 N.H. 2001
Because Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution provides at least the same level of protection for a defendant making a custodial statement as the United States Constitution, see State v. Jaroma, 137 N.H. 143, 149, 625 A.2d 1049, 1052-53 (1993); State v. Goding, 128 N.H. 267, 273-74, 513 A.2d 325, 330 (1986), we *725 do not engage in a separate federal analysis, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983).
Appeal of Morrill 765 A.2d 699 N.H. 2001
We address the State constitutional claim first.
State v. Sawyer 764 A.2d 936 N.H. 2001
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-33, 471 A.2d 347, 350-52 (1983); Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).
State v. Brunelle 766 A.2d 272 N.H. 2000
- We analyze the defendant’s constitutional claims first under the New Hampshire Constitution, relying on cases interpreting the Federal Constitution only to aid in our analysis.
State v. White 765 A.2d 156 N.H. 2000
We will first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), and will engage in a separate federal analysis only if federal law is more favorable.
State v. Donnelly 765 A.2d 680 N.H. 2000
We consider first the defendant’s arguments under Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983), employing federal cases only to aid in our analysis.
Longchamps Electric, Inc. v. New Hampshire State Apprenticeship Council 764 A.2d 921 N.H. 2000
We first address the plaintiff’s equal protection arguments under our State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983), and “because the Federal Constitution offers no greater protection under its equal protection provisions,” we do not undertake a separate federal analysis.