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 Healey v. New Durham Zoning Board of Adjustment, 665 A.2d 360.

23 citing documents.

  • Sullyville, LLC v. Town of Carroll N.H. 2021
    Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 241 (1995).
  • Professional Fire Fighters v. Town of Wolfeboro 48 A.3d 900 N.H. 2012
    Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 241 (1995).
  • Thomas v. Town of Hooksett 903 A.2d 963 N.H. 2006
    Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 240 (1995).
  • Nordic Inn Condominium Owners' Ass'n v. Ventullo 864 A.2d 1079 N.H. 2004
    Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 241 (1995).
  • In re City of Laconia 834 A.2d 329 N.H. 2003
    Our analysis of these factors “hinges upon the particular facts of each case.” Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 241 (1995).
  • Duffy v. City of Dover 818 A.2d 1251 N.H. 2003
    “[W]hen the language of an ordinance is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond the ordinance itself for further indications of legislative intent.” Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 236 (1995) (quotations and brackets omitted).
  • Dow v. Town of Effingham 803 A.2d 1059 N.H. 2002
    Healy v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 238 (1995).
  • New Canaan Bank & Trust v. Pfeffer 784 A.2d 704 N.H. 2001
    *127 Healey v. Town of Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 240 (1995) (quotation omitted); see also Conway Bank v. Pease, 76 N.H. 319, 324-25 (1912) (party must have used due diligence to acquire knowledge of truth of statements relied upon); Manning v. Cogan, 49 N.H. 331, 340 (1870) (same).
  • Miner v. A & C Tire Co. 776 A.2d 1286 N.H. 2001
    Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 241 (1995).
  • Town of Windham v. Lawrence Savings Bank 776 A.2d 730 N.H. 2001
    Appeal of Rainville, 143 N.H. 624, 631 (1999); Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 236 (1995).
  • Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management 745 A.2d 1155 N.H. 2000
    This is especially true when a valuable public interest may be jeopardized.” Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 239, 665 A.2d 360, 367 (1995) (quotation omitted).
  • Mountain Valley Mall Associates v. Municipality of Conway 745 A.2d 481 N.H. 2000
    See, e.g., Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 236, 665 A.2d 360, 365 (1995).
  • Sundberg v. Greenville Board of Adjustment 740 A.2d 1068 N.H. 1999
    Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 236, 665 A.2d 360, 365 (1995).
  • Soper v. Purdy 740 A.2d 1044 N.H. 1999
    “The propriety of applying laches hinges upon the particular facts of each case.” Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 241, 665 A.2d 360, 368 (1995).
  • Hurley v. Town of Hollis 729 A.2d 998 N.H. 1999
    When, however, plain and unambiguous language is not available to discern intent, we “look beyond [the language of] the ordinance itself for further indications of legislative intent.” Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 236, 665 A.2d 360, 365 (1995) (brackets omitted).
  • Tausanovitch v. Town of Lyme 722 A.2d 914 N.H. 1998
    See, e.g., Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 236, 665 A.2d 360, 365 (1995).
  • Cormier v. Town of Danville Zoning Board of Adjustment 710 A.2d 401 N.H. 1998
    The interpretation of a zoning ordinance is a question of law, and we are not bound by the construction placed on the ordinance by the board, see Brennan v. Winnipesaukee Flagship Corp., 122 N.H. 524, 526, 446 A.2d 1175, 1177 (1982), or the trial court, see Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 236, 665 A.2d 360, 365 (1995).
  • Peabody v. Town of Windham 703 A.2d 886 N.H. 1997
    The right to grant variances subject to conditions is well recognized, see, e.g., Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 237, 665 A.2d 360, 366 (1995), and a similar right attaches to appeals from decisions by administrative officers involving nonconforming uses, provided the conditions are reasonable and lawful.
  • A.J. Cameron Sod Farms, Inc. v. Continental Insurance 700 A.2d 290 N.H. 1997
    Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 240, 665 A.2d 360, 367 (1995).
  • In re Estate of Laura 690 A.2d 1011 N.H. 1997
    We have previously explained, however, that “[l]aches, unlike limitation, is not a mere matter of time, but is principally a question of the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced — an inequity founded on some change in the conditions or relations of the property or the parties involved.” Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 241, 665 A.2d 360, 368 (1995) (quotation omitted).
  • Bradley v. City of Manchester 682 A.2d 1194 N.H. 1996
    In addressing this argument, we keep in mind that “all statutes upon the same subject-matter are to be considered in *335 interpreting any one of them.” Appeal of Town of Hampton Falls, 126 N.H. 805, 809, 498 A.2d 304, 307 (1985) (quotation omitted); cf. Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 236, 665 A.2d 360, 365 (1995) (in general, rules of statutory construction apply to interpretation of zoning ordinances).
  • Stevens v. Town of Goshen 683 A.2d 814 N.H. 1996
    Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 239-40, 665 A.2d 360, 367 (1995).
  • Conforti v. City of Manchester 677 A.2d 147 N.H. 1996
    Healy v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 236, 665 A.2d 360, 365 (1995).