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