Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite New Hampshire Retirement System v. Sununu, 489 A.2d 615.

18 citing documents.

  • Petition of Louis L. Lafasciano N.H. 2022
    “Under RSA chapter 100-A, [NHRS] provides benefits for service retirement, disability retirement and accidental death to eligible members and beneficiaries.” N.H. Retirement System v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 104, 107 (1985).
  • Gregg Blackstock v. Executive Assistant, Adult Parole Board & a. N.H. 2016
    Moreover, “the construction of a statute by those charged with its administration is entitled to substantial deference.” N.H. Retirement System v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 104, 108 (1985).
  • Petition of Warden, New Hampshire State Prison 168 N.H. 9 N.H. 2015
    N.H. Retirement System v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 104, 109 (1985) (“[T]he long- standing practical and plausible interpretation [of a statute] applied by the agency responsible for its implementation, without any interference by the legislature, is evidence that the administrative construction conforms to the legislative intent.” (quotation omitted)); see also Appeal of
  • Appeal of Town of Seabrook 44 A.3d 518 N.H. 2012
    Ctr., 134 N.H. 207, 219 (1991) (“[T]he construction of a statute by those charged with its administration is entitled to substantial deference.” (quotation omitted)); N.H. Retirement System v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 104, 108 (1985) (“[T]he construction of a statute by those charged with its administration is entitled to substantial deference.”).
  • STATE EMPLOYEES'ASS'N OF NH v. State 20 A.3d 262 N.H. 2011
    RSA 188-F:6, XI (Supp. 2010); RSA 4:15 (2003); N.H. Retirement System v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 104 (1985).
  • Bel Air Associates v. New Hampshire Department of Health & Human Services 910 A.2d 1232 N.H. 2006
    We have noted that, when interpreting a statute, “the long-standing practical and plausible interpretation applied by the agency responsible for its implementation, without any interference by the legislature, is evidence that the administrative construction conforms to the legislative intent.” N.H. Retirement System v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 104, 109 (1985) (quotations omitted).
  • Appeal of St. Joseph Hospital 886 A.2d 1005 N.H. 2005
    Furthermore, we defer to the board’s interpretation, finding that it is reasonable and consistent with the language of other regulations governing the transfer of rehabilitation beds, the language of RSA chapter 151-C, and the purpose that the regulations were intended to serve.
  • Appeal of New Hampshire Department of Transportation 883 A.2d 272 N.H. 2005
    N.H. Retirement System v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 104, 108-09 (1985) (court defers to long-standing practical interpretation given statute by administrative entity without legislative interference when meaning of statute in doubt).
  • In re Weaver 837 A.2d 294 N.H. 2003
    While statutory construction by those charged with its administration is entitled to substantial deference, see N.H. Retirement System v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 104, 108 (1985), the interpretation of a statute is to be decided ultimately by this court.
  • Appeal of Stanton 805 A.2d 419 N.H. 2002
    Laws 1973, 218:2, IV, V; see N.H. Retirement System v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 104, 109 (1985).
  • Appeal of Rainville 732 A.2d 406 N.H. 1999
    Even a “long-standing administrative interpretation of a statute is irrelevant” if that interpretation clearly conflicts with express statutory language.
  • In re Barney 710 A.2d 408 N.H. 1998
    “Under the common law of trusts, the [board] owes the [NHRS] members and beneficiaries a fiduciary obligation to manage the [NHRS] for the benefit of its members and beneficiaries.” N.H. Retirement System v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 104, 109, 489 A.2d 615, 619 (1985).
  • Appeal of Ashland Electric Department 682 A.2d 710 N.H. 1996
    Where statutory language is ambiguous, as in this case, we examine the statute’s overall objective, and give substantial deference to the interpretation of those charged with its administration.
  • Day v. New Hampshire Retirement System 635 A.2d 493 N.H. 1993
    Our conclusion is consistent with our decision in New Hampshire Retirement System v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 104, 489 A.2d 615 (1985), where we held that although established by statute, the retirement system is an independent entity rather than an executive department or agency.
  • Appeal of Salem Regional Medical Center 590 A.2d 602 N.H. 1991
    “[T]he construction of a statute by those charged with its administration is entitled to substantial deference.” N.H. Retirement System v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 104, 108, 489 A.2d 615, 618 (1985).
  • Chambers v. Geiger 573 A.2d 1356 N.H. 1990
    Assoc’s of N.E., 131 N.H. 560, 565-66, 556 A.2d 1183, 1187 (1989); N.H. Retirement System v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 104, 109, 489 A.2d 615, 619 (1985); Hamby v. Adams, 117 N.H. 606, 609, 376 A.2d 519, 521 (1977).
  • Catholic Medical Center v. Elliot Hospital 543 A.2d 901 N.H. 1988
    “[T]he construction of a statute by those charged with its administration is entitled to substantial deference.” Hamby v. Adams, 117 N.H. 606, 609, 376 A.2d 519, 521 (1977); N.H. Retirement System v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 104, 108, 489 A.2d 615, 618 (1985).
  • Littky v. Winchester School District 529 A.2d 399 N.H. 1987
    [In fact a]n administrative interpretation may be persuasive.” N.H. Retirement System v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 104, 108, 489 A.2d 615, 618 (1985) (citations omitted).