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 Gardner v. City of Concord, 624 A.2d 1337.

18 citing documents.

  • Tamre McCrea & a. v. New Hampshire Department of Transportation N.H. 2025
    at 422 (quotation omitted) (decision of whether to install a flashing beacon at an intersection is discretionary function); see also Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 258 (1993) (setting of road maintenance standards a discretionary, policy function); DiFruscia v. N.H. Dept. of Pub.
  • Appeal of Michael G. Cross N.H. 2024
    Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 257 (1993) (municipal discretionary function immunity case citing DiFruscia v. N.H. Dept. of Public Works, 136 N.H. 202, 203 (1992), a State discretionary function immunity case); Ford v. N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 294-96 (2012) (State discretionary function immunity case relying on Everitt v. Gen.
  • Lynette Maryea v. Thomas Velardi & A 168 N.H. 633 N.H. 2016
    v. Town of Conway, 127 N.H. 593, 600 (1986); traffic control and parking regulations, Sorenson v. City of Manchester, 136 N.H. 692, 694 (1993); setting of road maintenance standards and construction of a sidewalk when based upon a city’s faulty plan or design, Gardner [v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 258, 259 (1993)]; traffic control and management of roadway safety, Bergeron v. City of Manchester, 140 N.H. 417, 422, 424 (1995); a decision whether to enact maintenance and inspection regulation
  • Scott Robinson v. Hillsborough County & a. N.H. 2015
    A governmental entity may be subject to tort liability when its employees “negligently follow or fail to follow an established plan or standards, and injuries result.” Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 258 (1993).
  • Appeal of New Hampshire Department of Transportation 977 A.2d 451 N.H. 2009
    Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 256 (1993).
  • Tarbell Administrator, Inc. v. City of Concord 956 A.2d 322 N.H. 2008
    gislative and executive decision-making,” Schoff v. City of Somersworth, 137 N.H. 583, 590 (1993), because “[t]o accept a jury’s verdict as to the reasonableness and safety of a plan of governmental services and prefer it over the judgment of the governmental body which originally considered and passed on the matter would be to obstruct normal governmental operations.” Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 256 (1993).
  • Everitt v. General Electric Co. 932 A.2d 831 N.H. 2007
    “To accept a jury’s verdict as to the reasonableness and safety of a plan of *211 governmental services and prefer it over the judgment of the governmental body which originally considered and passed on the matter would be to obstruct normal governmental operations.” Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 256 (1993).
  • Kaplan v. Booth Creek Ski Group, Inc. 785 A.2d 412 N.H. 2001
    Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 255-56 (1993).
  • Hacking v. Town of Belmont 736 A.2d 1229 N.H. 1999
    at 421, 666 A.2d at 985; Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 258, 624 A.2d 1337, 1340 (1993).
  • Konefal v. Hollis/Brookline Cooperative School District 723 A.2d 30 N.H. 1998
    Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 255-56, 624 A.2d 1337, 1338-39 (1993) (quotation and citations omitted).
  • Miami Subs Corp. v. Murray Family Trust & Kenneth Dash Partnership 703 A.2d 1366 N.H. 1997
    Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 256, 624 A.2d 1337, 1338 (1993).
  • Mahan v. New Hampshire Department of Administrative Services 693 A.2d 79 N.H. 1997
    Compare Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 257, 624 A.2d 1337, 1339 (1993) (describing discretionary function exception) with DiFruscia v. N.H. Dept. of Pub.
  • Goss v. City of Manchester 669 A.2d 785 N.H. 1995
    .” Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 257, 624 A.2d 1337, 1339 (1993) (quotation omitted).
  • Bergeron v. City of Manchester 666 A.2d 982 N.H. 1995
    Works & Highways, 136 N.H. 202, 205, 612 A.2d 1326, 1328 (1992) with Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 257, 624 A.2d 1337, 1339 (1993), we will address the city and the State’s immunity questions together.
  • Conrad v. Hazen 665 A.2d 372 N.H. 1995
    The defendants, however, “inviteG us to decide the issue in [their] favor, thereby allowing us to sustain the trial court’s decision even though it was based on mistaken grounds.” Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 260, 624 A.2d 1337, 1341 (1993).
  • Baxter International, Inc. v. State 665 A.2d 350 N.H. 1995
    *216 “In reviewing a motion to dismiss on appeal, we ask whether the plaintiffs’] allegations are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.” Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 255-56, 624 A.2d 1337, 1338 (1993) (quotation omitted).
  • Marbucco Corp. v. City of Manchester 632 A.2d 522 N.H. 1993
    Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 256, 624 A.2d 1337, 1339 (1993) (discussing the abrogation of municipal immunity in tort).
  • Schoff v. City of Somersworth 630 A.2d 783 N.H. 1993
    ipality’s failure “to install sufficient signage and guardrails in areas of dangerous embankments.” *589 The superior court ruled that “the decision not to erect warning signs and/or guardrails is not a decision characterized by a high degree of discretion to which the discretionary function exception to municipal liability applies.” In light of our recent decisions in Gardner v. City of Concord, 137 N.H. 253, 258, 624 A.2d 1337, 1340 (1993), Sorenson v. City of Manchester, 136 N.H. 692, 694, 62