Cited by

The defendant’s assertion that the order was designed to “fix” the case, and somehow usurp the authority of this court to decide the issues in this case, is completely without merit and warrants no further discussion.

We also need not address the plaintiffs remaining arguments that the trial court improperly denied his cross-motion for summary judgment and his motion to amend his complaint to add damage claims, as resolution of these issues would have no effect on the outcome of this case.

Other Issues In light of our decision upholding the race track ordinance, we need not address the plaintiffs remaining arguments because resolution of these issues would have no effect on the outcome of this case.

We find the plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard to review the defendant’s summary judgment motion to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

As the issue before us solely concerns whether the respondent should be held in contempt for disregarding our orders, the validity of his Massachusetts suspension is irrelevant and, therefore, will not be addressed.

The plaintiffs’ remaining arguments lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

We need not address Cristal’s remaining arguments because they were either not properly raised below and preserved for appeal, or they are *415 meritless and warrant no further discussion.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining arguments concerning superior court costs and attorney’s fees, and find them to be without merit, warranting no further discussion.

The petitioners’ argument, based upon evidence in Smell v. State of New Hampshire, 146 N.H. 364 (2001), lacks merit and warrants no extended discussion.

The respondent’s remaining arguments lack merit or do not warrant further discussion.

We have reviewed the record with respect to the defendants’ remaining arguments and find them without merit and warranting no further discussion.

This argument lacks merit and warrants no further discussion.

The plaintiffs remaining arguments are without merit and warrant no further discussion.

*740 The respondent’s remaining arguments lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

The defendants’ remaining arguments lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

The defendant’s remaining arguments lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

We need not address the plaintiff’s remaining arguments because they were either not properly raised below and preserved for *603 appeal, or they are meritless and warrant no further discussion.

Other issues raised by the parties are without merit, and warrant no further discussion.

*495 We have reviewed the record with respect to Star Vector’s remaining arguments and find them without merit and warranting no further discussion.

*454 We conclude that the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

The intervenors’ remaining contentions are not addressed because they either were not preserved below, Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 128 (1995), or lack merit and warrant no further review, Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

We have considered the Webster plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit, warranting no further discussion.

We have reviewed Tofte’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

As a result of our ruling regarding the 1987 and 1992 amendments, NCES’ argument concerning a “builder’s remedy” lacks merit and warrants no further discussion.

Other issues raised by the defendant are without merit, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993), or are deemed waived because they were not briefed.

The defendants’ remaining arguments are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

The plaintiff’s remaining arguments lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

To the extent that the defendant argues that he has a constitutionally protected interest in the appeal process itself, this argument is without merit and warrants no further discussion.

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit, warranting no further discussion.

*173 The remaining arguments presented by the plaintiff are without merit and warrant no further discussion.

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

The plaintiffs’ remaining arguments lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

The parties’ remaining arguments, following a review of the record, are without merit and warrant no further discussion.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

We have reviewed the parties’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

Ill The defendant’s remaining arguments are either rendered moot by our holdings today, or lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit, warranting no further discussion.

The petitioners’ remaining constitutional claims lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

The State’s remaining arguments are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

The town’s remaining arguments as to the PELRB’s jurisdiction and/or an arbitrator’s authority to decide this dispute lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

The plaintiffs’ remaining arguments lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

The petitioner’s remaining arguments lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

Fleet’s remaining arguments on this issue lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

The State’s remaining arguments lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

The City’s argument that the 1990 act somehow modified RSA chapter 100-A because it is more specific legislation lacks merit and warrants no further discussion.

The respondent’s remaining arguments lack merit and warrant no further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322, 627 A.2d 595, 596 (1993).

We do not address the defendant’s remaining arguments because they lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

Thus, it was not error for the board to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal under RSA 74:7-a, I. The petitioner’s remaining arguments as to the requirements of RSA chapter 74 lack merit and warrant no further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322, 627 A.2d 595, 596 (1993).

We conclude that the parties’ remaining arguments are meritless and do not warrant further discussion.

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.