Cited by

Compare Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 154 (1991) (per curiam) (explaining that party has standing to raise constitutional issue when party’s own personal rights have been or will be directly affected — in other words, that the party has suffered or will suffer an “injury in fact”), with Nguyen, 170 N.H. at 243 (outlining procedural due process analysis).

To establish standing under section 541:3, NHRTL must show that it “has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact.” Appeal of Stonyfield Farm, 159 N.H. 227, 231 (2009); see also Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 154 (1991).

generally State v. Hynes, 159 N.H. 187, 196 (2009) (finding that defendant failed “to explain exactly how his threatened [Consumer Protection Act] claim fits within the statutory language conferring private-party standing upon only those ‘injured by another’s use of any method, act or practice declared unlawful.’”); Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 155 (1991) (finding no standing under RSA chapter 541 because “[t]he appealing stockholders have not alleged a direct injury as a result of the PUC’

Even when a constitutional challenge is alleged, an appealing party must prove that its “own personal rights have been or will be directly and specifically affected!’ Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 154 (1991) (emphasis added); see also Joyce, 156 N.H. at 529.

RSA 541:3;:6; cf Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 154 (1991) (equating directly affected standard in RSA 541:3 with “injury in fact”).

To have standing to appeal an administrative agency decision to this court, a party must demonstrate that its rights “may be directly affected by the decision, or in other words, that [it] has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact.” Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 154 (quotations and citations omitted), cert.

To have standing to appeal an administrative agency decision to this court, a party must demonstrate that his rights “may be directly affected by the decision, or in other words, that he has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact.” Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 154 (quotations and citations omitted), cert.

Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 154, cert.

“It is not the function of this court to add provisions to the statute that the legislature did not see fit to include.” Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 162, cert.

Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 155, cert.

Co. of N.H. 130 N.H. 265, 539 A.2d 263 (1988), appeal dismissed, 488 U.S. 1035 (1989); Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 590 A.2d 586, cert.

Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 154, 590 A.2d 586, 589 (1991), cert.

RSA 541:4 (1997); cf. Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 154, 590 A.2d 586, 590, cert.

Much of the case background can be found in Petition of Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 130 N.H. 265, 539 A.2d 263 (1988), appeal dismissed, 488 U.S. 1035 (1989), and Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 590 A.2d 586, cert.

Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 165, 590 A.2d 586, 596-97, cert.

“Issues not raised in the motion for rehearing may not be raised on appeal.” Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 154, 590 A.2d 586, 590, cert.

We “look first to the statutory language itself,” Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 161, 590 A.2d 586, 594 (1991), and “where possible, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to words used.” Appeal of Astro Spectacular, 138 N.H. 298, 300, 639 A.2d 249, 250 (1994).

RSA 541:13; see Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 158, 590 A.2d 586, 592, cert.

*272 The general rule in this State is that “a party has standing to raise a constitutional issue only when his own personal rights have been or will be directly and specifically affected.” Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 154, 590 A.2d 586, 590, cert.

The “injury in fact” standing requirement raised by Courville is inapposite to his situation.

Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 158, 590 A.2d 586, 592 (1991) (reviewing decision of public utilities commission).

13 (1974): “[A]ll findings of the commission upon all questions of fact properly before it shall be deemed to be prima facie lawful and reasonable; and the order or decision appealed from shall not be set aside or vacated except for errors of law, unless the court is satisfied, by a clear preponderance of the evidence before it, that such order is unjust or unreasonable.” See Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 158, 590 A.2d 586, 592, cert.

Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 161, 590 A.2d 586, 594, cert.

Under RSA 541:13, “all findings of the commission upon all questions of fact properly before it shall be deemed to be prima facie lawful and reasonable.” See also Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 158, 590 A.2d 586, 592, cert.

The standard of review to be applied in deciding these issues was recently set forth in Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148, 158, 590 A.2d 586, 592 (1991): “A party seeking to set aside a decision of the PUC has the burden of demonstrating that the decision is unlawful, or, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, that it is unjust or unreasonable.