DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 475 A.2d 12.

19 citing documents.

  • Stone v. City of Claremont 2024 N.H. 11 N.H. 2024
    R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671 (1984).
  • Foundation for Seacoast Health v. HCA Health Services of New Hampshire, Inc. 953 A.2d 420 N.H. 2008
    When interpreting a contract, “our inquiry focuses on the intent of the contracting parties at the time of the agreement.” R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671 (1984).
  • N.A.P.P. Realty Trust v. CC Enterprises 784 A.2d 1166 N.H. 2001
    R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671 (1984).
  • Slattery v. Norwood Realty, Inc. 765 A.2d 143 N.H. 2000
    When we interpret an ambiguous contract, our focus is on “the intent of the contracting parties at the time of the agreement.” R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984).
  • Robbins v. Salem Radiology 764 A.2d 885 N.H. 2000
    In ascertaining the parties’ intent, “we consider the situation of the parties at the time of their agreement and the object that was intended thereby, together with all the provisions of their agreement taken as a whole.” R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984).
  • West v. Turchioe 761 A.2d 382 N.H. 1999
    R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984).
  • Holl v. Claremont Associates 729 A.2d 419 N.H. 1999
    “In interpreting a contract, our inquiry focuses on the intent of the contracting parties at the time of the agreement.” R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984).
  • Huguelet v. Allstate Insurance 693 A.2d 408 N.H. 1997
    Cogswell, 78 N.H. at 383, 101 A. at 147; McIsaac, 77 N.H. at 473, 93 A. at 119; see also R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984).
  • BankEast v. Michalenoick 639 A.2d 272 N.H. 1994
    R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 670-71, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984).
  • Butler v. Walker Power, Inc. 629 A.2d 91 N.H. 1993
    In interpreting a contract, we will “consider the situation of the parties at the time of their agreement and the object that was intended thereby, together with all the provisions of their agreement taken as a whole.” R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984).
  • Gamble v. University System 610 A.2d 357 N.H. 1992
    R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 670, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984).
  • Great Lakes Aircraft Co. v. City of Claremont 608 A.2d 840 N.H. 1992
    The trial court properly instructed the jury that, in order to resolve ambiguity concerning intent, the jury must consider “the situation of the parties at the time of their agreement and the object that was intended thereby, together with all the provisions of their agreement taken as a whole.” R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 621, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984).
  • Woodstock Soapstone Co. v. Carleton 585 A.2d 312 N.H. 1991
    R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984); see Erin Food Servs., Inc. v. 688 Props., 119 N.H. 232, 235, 401 A.2d 201, 203 (1979).
  • Miller v. Miller 578 A.2d 872 N.H. 1990
    “[I]n ascertaining the intent of the parties, ‘we will consider the situation of the parties at the time of their agreement and the object that was intended thereby, together with all the provisions of their agreement taken as a whole.’” Centronics Data Computer Corp. v. Salzman, 129 N.H. 692, 696, 531 A.2d 348, 350 (1987) (quoting R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984)).
  • Parkhurst v. Gibson 573 A.2d 454 N.H. 1990
    Our task in interpreting this antenuptial agreement is to ascertain the parties’ intent, see R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 *62 N.H. 666, 671, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984), as expressed in the written contract; see also 4 S. Williston, A Treatise on the Law of CONTRACTS § 610 (3d ed. 1961).
  • Heaton v. Boulders Properties, Inc. 566 A.2d 1127 N.H. 1989
    Thiem v. Thomas, 119 N.H. 598, 603, 406 A.2d 115, 118 (1979) (citing Spear v. Penna, 92 N.H. 190, 27 A.2d 92 (1942)); see also Centronics Data, 129 N.H. at 696, 531 A.2d at 350 (quoting R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984)); Gosselin v. Archibald, 121 N.H. 1016, 1020, 437 A.2d 302, 306 (1981); Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981).
  • Centronics Data Computer Corp. v. Salzman 531 A.2d 348 N.H. 1987
    R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984).
  • Mailloux v. Dickey 523 A.2d 66 N.H. 1986
    R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 670-71, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984); Holevas v. Mills, 124 N.H. 292, 295, 469 A.2d 1329, 1332 (1983).
  • Restaurant Operators, Inc. v. Jenney 519 A.2d 256 N.H. 1986
    However, “[w]hen there is a question of fact concerning what was intended by certain terms within a contract, the dispute is to be resolved by the trier of fact, whose findings will be upheld if supported by the evidence.” R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671, 475 A.2d 12, 16 (1984) (citing Peabody v. Wentzell, 123 N.H. 416, 418-19, 462 A.2d 105, 107 (1983)).