Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 663 A.2d 1328.

18 citing documents.

  • New England Backflow, Inc. & a. v. Daniel Gagne & a. N.H. 2019
    10 applied this provision to the regulation of land, holding that a regulation “effects an unconstitutional taking” where “its application to a particular parcel denies the owner an economically viable use of his or her land.” Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 130 (1995) (quotation omitted).
  • Waterfield v. Meredith Corp. 20 A.3d 865 N.H. 2011
    We conclude that these arguments either were not preserved below, Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 128 (1995), not developed sufficiently to warrant our review, In the Matter of Aube, 158 N.H. 459, 466 (2009), or are, under the circumstances of this case, without merit, and do not warrant further discussion, Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).
  • McKenzie v. TOWN OF EATON ZONING BD. 917 A.2d 193 N.H. 2007
    tection challenge); or (3) adopting a heightened level of review, see, e.g., Caspersen v. Town of Lyme, 139 N.H. 637, 645-46, 661 A.2d 759 (1995) (Brock, C.J., concurring specially) (suggesting that given an appropriate occasion, we should review our holding that substantive due process challenges to zoning ordinances are evaluated under the rational basis standard); Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 129, 663 A.2d 1328 (1995) (refusing to reconsider the level of review that should be ap
  • Community Resources for Justice, Inc. v. City of Manchester 917 A.2d 707 N.H. 2007
    Compare Verizon New England, 151 N.H. at 270 (rational basis), with Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 132 (1995) (burden of proof on challenger under intermediate scrutiny), and Jensen’s, Inc., 130 N.H. at 768 (presume legislation valid under intermediate scrutiny).
  • Boulders at Strafford, LLC v. Town of Strafford 903 A.2d 1021 N.H. 2006
    even then, the cases cited in Boulders’ memorandum of law below — Dow and Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124 (1995) — make reference to or apply both the substantive due process and equal protection standards, thus leaving it uncertain as to what type of claim Boulders had raised.
  • Taylor v. Town of Plaistow 872 A.2d 769 N.H. 2005
    at 125; see also Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 129 (1995).
  • Daly v. State 837 A.2d 340 N.H. 2003
    cf. Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 130 (1995); De-Tom Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., 552 F.2d 337, 339-40 (Ct. Cl.
  • Graves v. Estabrook 818 A.2d 1255 N.H. 2003
    Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 131 (1995); see also State v. Reid, 135 N.H. 376 (1992).
  • Dow v. Town of Effingham 803 A.2d 1059 N.H. 2002
    Caspersen, 139 N.H. at 646 (Brock, C.J., concurring) (suggesting that given an appropriate occasion, we should review our holding that substantive due process challenges to zoning ordinances are evaluated under the rational basis standard); see also Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 129 (1995).
  • Town of Nottingham v. Newman 785 A.2d 891 N.H. 2001
    Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 128 (1995); see also State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100-01 (1999) (rules regarding preservation of issues on appeal not relaxed for pro se litigants).
  • State v. Doucette 776 A.2d 744 N.H. 2001
    Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124 (1995); State v. Mountjoy, 142 N.H. 648 (1998).
  • Town of Nottingham v. Bonser 777 A.2d 851 N.H. 2001
    The intervenors’ remaining contentions are not addressed because they either were not preserved below, Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 128 (1995), or lack merit and warrant no further review, Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).
  • Lake v. Sullivan 766 A.2d 708 N.H. 2001
    Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 128, 663 A.2d 1328, 1331 (1995); see also State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100-01, 738 A.2d 1271, 1275 (1999) (rules regarding preservation of issues on appeal not relaxed for pro se litigants).
  • Phillips v. City of Concord 764 A.2d 929 N.H. 2000
    “On appeal, we sustain the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidential support or tainted by error of law.” Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 128, 663 A.2d 1328, 1331 (1995) (quotation omitted).
  • Fischer v. Governor 749 A.2d 321 N.H. 2000
    Finally, we do not address the plaintiff’s remaining arguments because either the record before us does not demonstrate that they were argued before the trial court, and thus we deem them waived, *41 Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 128, 663 A.2d 1328, 1331 (1995), or they lack merit and warrant no further discussion, Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322, 627 A.2d 595, 596 (1993).
  • Neville v. Highfields Farm, Inc. 744 A.2d 89 N.H. 1999
    “On appeal, we sustain the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidential support or tainted by error of law.” Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 128, 663 A.2d 1328, 1331 (1995) (quotation omitted).
  • Provencher v. Buzzell-Plourde Associates 711 A.2d 251 N.H. 1998
    Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 128, 663 A.2d 1328, 1331 (1995).
  • Casico, Inc. v. City of Manchester 702 A.2d 302 N.H. 1997
    Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 133, 663 A.2d 1328, 1335 (1995).