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 Dermody v. Town of Gilford Planning Board, 627 A.2d 570.

15 citing documents.

  • Explained In re D.O. N.H. 2020
    In that context, we have held that compliance with a statutory deadline for filing an appeal “is a necessary prerequisite to establishing jurisdiction in the appellate body.” Dermody v. Town of Gilford, 137 N.H. 294, 296 (1993) (quotation omitted).
  • In re Cole 196 A.3d 950 N.H. 2018
    Dermody v. Town of Gilford, 137 N.H. 294, 296, 627 A.2d 570 (1993) (quotation omitted).
  • Appeal of James Cole N.H. 2018
    Compliance with this statutory thirty-day rule “is a necessary prerequisite to establishing jurisdiction in the appellate body.” Dermody v. Town of Gilford, 137 N.H. 294, 296 (1993) (quotation omitted).
  • Trefethen v. Town of Derry 64 A.3d 959 N.H. 2013
    Radziewicz, 159 N.H. at 316-17; cf. Dermody v. Town of Gilford, 137 N.H. 294, 296 (1993) (RSA 677:15 requires petitioner to adhere to thirty-day deadline in order to vest superior court with subject matter jurisdiction over a planning board appeal).
  • Radziewicz v. Town of Hudson 982 A.2d 415 N.H. 2009
    RSA 677:4 vests jurisdiction in the superior court for appeals of ZBA decisions only if a petition is filed “within 30 days after the date upon which the [ZBA] voted to deny the motion for rehearing.” We addressed a similar issue in Dermody v. Town of Gilford, 137 N.H. 294 (1993).
  • Cardinal Development Corp. v. Town of Winchester Zoning Board of Adjustment 958 A.2d 996 N.H. 2008
    RSA 677:3,1; Pelletier v. City of Manchester, 150 N.H. 687, 690 (2004); Dermody v. Town of Gilford, 137 N.H. 294, 296 (1993).
  • Appeal of Carreau 945 A.2d 687 N.H. 2008
    We have repeatedly held that New Hampshire follows the majority rule regarding compliance with statutory time requirements, and, thus, “[o]ne day’s delay may be fatal to a party’s appeal.” Dermody v. Town of Gilford, 137 N.H. 294, 296 (1993).
  • Route 12 Books & Video v. Town of Troy 825 A.2d 493 N.H. 2003
    Dermody v. Town of Gilford, 137 N.H. 294, 296-97 (1993).
  • Franklin Lodge of Elks v. Marcoux 782 A.2d 907 N.H. 2001
    New Hampshire follows the majority rule of requiring “strict compliance with statutory time restrictions.” Dermody v. Town of Gilford, 137 N.H. 294, 296 (1993).
  • Simonsen v. Town of Derry 765 A.2d 1033 N.H. 2000
    Dermody v. Town of Gilford, 137 N.H. 294, 296, 627 A.2d 570, 571 (1993).
  • Phetteplace v. Town of Lyme 744 A.2d 630 N.H. 2000
    New Hampshire follows the majority rule regarding compliance with statutory time requirements, and thus “[o]ne day’s delay may be fatal to a party’s appeal.” Dermody v. Town of Gilford, 137 N.H. 294, 296, 627 A.2d 570, 571 (1993).
  • In re Estate of Pratt 744 A.2d 1125 N.H. 1999
    RSA 21-J:28-b (setting forth administrative review process); RSA 86:92, IV; cf. Dermody v. Town of Gilford, 137 N.H. 294, 296, 627 A.2d 570, 571 (1993) (“Filing an appeal in a timely manner vests the [appellate body] with subject matter jurisdiction.”).
  • K & J Associates v. City of Lebanon 703 A.2d 253 N.H. 1997
    “[C]ompliance with the procedural deadline for filing an appeal is a necessary prerequisite to establishing jurisdiction in the appellate body.” Dermody v. Town of Gilford, 137 N.H. 294, 296, 627 A.2d 570, 571 (1993) (emphasis omitted).
  • Voelbel v. Town of Bridgewater 692 A.2d 512 N.H. 1997
    Dermody v. Town of Gilford, 137 N.H. 294, 296, 627 A.2d 570, 571 (1993).
  • Doggett v. Town of North Hampton Zoning Board of Adjustment 645 A.2d 673 N.H. 1994
    Dermody v. Town of Gilford, 137 N.H. 294, 297, 627 A.2d 570, 571 (1993).