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 State v. Peterson, 609 A.2d 749.

14 citing documents.

  • Simplex Technologies, Inc. v. Town of Newington 766 A.2d 713 N.H. 2001
    Ct. R. 16(3)(b); see also State v. Peterson, 135 N.H. 713, 714-15, 609 A.2d 749, 750-51 (1992).
  • Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Town of Hudson 766 A.2d 672 N.H. 2000
    To the extent the utility has set forth additional claims of error that were not raised in its notice of appeal, we deem those arguments waived.
  • State v. Jackson 738 A.2d 354 N.H. 1999
    The question raised in the defendant’s notice of appeal asks whether “the [cjourt err[ed] in allowing the prosecutor to interject himself into the proceedings during questioning of at least one witness?” While the latter arguments may *118 involve the same inconsistent statement at issue in the first argument, we find them to be distinct from the issue raised in the notice of appeal.
  • State v. Summers 702 A.2d 819 N.H. 1997
    We therefore consider the argument waived.
  • Arthur Whitcomb, Inc. v. Town of Carroll 686 A.2d 743 N.H. 1996
    Ct. R. 16(3)(b); State v. Peterson, 135 N.H. 713, 714-15, 609 A.2d 749, 750-51 (1992), or did not brief them adequately, State v. Hermsdorf, 135 N.H. 360, 365, 605 A.2d 1045, 1048 (1992).
  • Matarese v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance 682 A.2d 258 N.H. 1996
  • State v. Smith 681 A.2d 1215 N.H. 1996
    Ct. R. 16(3)(b); State v. Peterson, 135 N.H. 713, 714-15, 609 A.2d 749, 750-51 (1992), and we confine our discussion accordingly.
  • Appeal of New Hampshire Department of Employment Security 672 A.2d 697 N.H. 1996
  • Anglin v. Kleeman 665 A.2d 747 N.H. 1995
    It therefore will not be addressed on appeal.
  • Thompson v. H.W.G. Group, Inc. 664 A.2d 489 N.H. 1995
    The plaintiffs argue in their brief that the defendants’ actions violate RSA 358-A:2 regardless of whether they violated RSA 356-B:65, I. That issue, however, was not raised in their notice of appeal and therefore will not be considered.
  • State v. Taylor 649 A.2d 375 N.H. 1994
    State v. Horne, 136 N.H. 348, 349, 615 A.2d 1251, 1252 (1992); State v. Peterson, 135 N.H. 713, 714, 609 A.2d 749, 750 (1992); Sup.
  • Gephart v. Daigneault 623 A.2d 1349 N.H. 1993
    This argument, however, was not raised in the Daigneault’s notice of cross-appeal and is therefore not properly before us. State v. Peterson, 135 N.H. 713, 714-15, 609 A.2d 749, 750-51 (1992).
  • State v. Roberts 622 A.2d 1225 N.H. 1993
    State v. Peterson, 135 N.H. 713, 714-15, 609 A.2d 749, 750-51 (1992); State v. McAdams, 134 N.H. 445, 446, 594 A.2d 1273, 1273-74 (1991); State v. Menard, 133 N.H. 708, 712, 584 A.2d 752, 754-55 (1990); Sup.
  • Annicchiarico v. State 618 A.2d 800 N.H. 1992
    Ct. R. 16(3)(b); see also State v. Peterson, 135 N.H. 713, 714, 609 A.2d 749, 750 (1992).