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 Tilton v. Dougherty, 493 A.2d 442.

16 citing documents.

  • Petition of New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families N.H. 2023
    See, e.g., Tilton v. Dougherty, 126 N.H. 294, 300 (1985) (“Sovereign immunity itself has been rejected by some members of this court, and whatever future the doctrine may have depends on the merits of the legislative response to the widespread dissatisfaction with it.”); see also Brosseau, 124 N.H. at 192 (opining that the legislature must “correct the present p
  • Clifford E. Avery v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Corrections N.H. 2020
    Tilton v. Dougherty, 126 N.H. 294, 297-98 (1985) (explaining “[o]fficial immunity is considered a distinct doctrine [from sovereign immunity] that shields State officials and employees themselves” and is “a derivative or extension of the doctrine of sovereign immunity”).
  • Aranosian Oil Co., Inc. & a. v. State of New Hampshire 127 A.3d 665 N.H. 2015
    Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the State is immune from suit in its courts without its consent.
  • New Hampshire Municipal Association & a. v. New Hampshire Department of State & a. N.H. 2015
    Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the State cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent.
  • Everitt v. General Electric Co. 932 A.2d 831 N.H. 2007
    Tilton v. Dougherty, 126 N.H. 294, 298 (1985) (sovereign immunity); Merrill v. Manchester, 114 N.H. 722, 727 (1974) (municipal immunity).
  • Bio Energy, LLC v. Town of Hopkinton 891 A.2d 509 N.H. 2005
    “[W]e take as true all facts well pleaded, and construe all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Tilton v. Dougherty, 126 N.H. 294, 296 (1985).
  • Lorenz v. New Hampshire Administrative Office of Courts 883 A.2d 265 N.H. 2005
    Tilton v. Dougherty, 126 N.H. 294, 298 (1985) (quotation omitted); see LaRoche, 134 N.H. at 566 (“[o]ur decisions have found express or implied consent to suit only in the acts of our legislature”).
  • Hughes v. New Hampshire Division of Aeronautics 871 A.2d 18 N.H. 2005
    Services, 141 N.H. 747, 749 (1997) (citing Tilton v. Dougherty, 126 N.H. 294, 297 (1985)).
  • In re Estate of Raduazo 814 A.2d 147 N.H. 2002
    Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the State cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent or permission.
  • Mahan v. New Hampshire Department of Administrative Services 693 A.2d 79 N.H. 1997
    *749 I. Sovereign Immunity Pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the State may not be sued in State court without its consent.
  • State v. Dexter 621 A.2d 435 N.H. 1993
    “[Prosecutors] could not exercise independent discretion if they had to fear retribution from the government that would have to pay the judgment.” Tilton v. Dougherty, 126 N.H. 294, 299, 493 A.2d 442, 445-46 (1985); cf. RSA 541-B:19, 1(a) (Supp. 1992) (limited waiver of sovereign immunity for State, its officials and employees not applicable to claim based on exercise of judicial function).
  • Belcher v. Paine 612 A.2d 1318 N.H. 1992
    Tilton v. Dougherty, 126 N.H. 294, 493 A.2d 442 (1985); Moore, 94 N.H. 387, 54 A.2d 167; Evans, 1 N.H. 374.
  • Estate of LaRoche v. Doe 594 A.2d 1297 N.H. 1991
    Under the doctrine, the State cannot be sued in its own courts unless it consents to such suit.
  • Richardson v. Chevrefils 552 A.2d 89 N.H. 1988
    The doctrine of qualified immunity is a creature of federal law, as to which our holding in Tilton v. Dougherty, 126 N.H. 294, 493 A.2d 442 (1985), is irrelevant.
  • Newell v. New Hampshire Division of Welfare & Roland Couture 550 A.2d 109 N.H. 1988
    Tilton v. Dougherty, 126 N.H. 294, 300, 493 A.2d 442, 446 (1985); State v. Brosseau, 124 N.H. 184, 192, 470 A.2d 869, 874 (1983).
  • Opinion of the Justices 493 A.2d 1182 N.H. 1985
    Similarly, in Tilton v. Dougherty, 126 N.H. 294, 300, 493 A.2d 442, 446 (1985), Justice Brock, writing for the court, stated, “whatever future the [sovereign immunity] doctrine may have depends on the merits of the legislative response to the widespread dissatisfaction with it.” As the resolution certifying the bill to our consideration makes clear, HB 440 is a le