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 Glines v. Bruk, 664 A.2d 79.

14 citing documents.

  • David Eldridge & a. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC & a. N.H. 2017
    The plaintiffs concede that, because the defendants met their burden to show that this action was not brought within the applicable statute of limitations, the plaintiffs bore the burden to prove the applicability of the discovery rule to their claims.
  • City of Rochester v. Marcel A. Payeur, Inc. & a. 169 N.H. 502 N.H. 2016
    II The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and thus a matter as to which defendants CB&I and AECOM bear the burden of proof.
  • Christopher Nastasi v. Ronald Brown & a. N.H. 2015
    The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and the defendants bear the burden of proving that it applies to the plaintiff’s claims.
  • Lamprey v. Britton Construction, Inc. 37 A.3d 359 N.H. 2012
    Id.; see Glines v. Bruk, 140 N.H. 180, 182 (1995).
  • Billewicz v. Ransmeier 13 A.3d 116 N.H. 2010
    may be brought only within 3 years of the act or omission complained of....” “[T]he defendant bears the burden of proving that [the statute of limitations] applies in a given case.” Glines v. Bruk, 140 N.H. 180, 181 (1995).
  • Beane v. Dana S. Beane & Co., P.C. 7 A.3d 1284 N.H. 2010
    the defendant bears the burden of proving that it applies in a given case.” Glines v. Bruk, 140 N.H. 180, 181 (1995) (citations omitted).
  • State v. Lake Winnipesaukee Resort, LLC 977 A.2d 472 N.H. 2009
    The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and the respondents bear the burden of proving that it applies.
  • Perez v. Pike Industries, Inc. 889 A.2d 27 N.H. 2005
    The statute of limitations constitutes an affirmative defense.
  • Kelleher v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. 891 A.2d 477 N.H. 2005
    Once the defendant establishes that the cause of action was not brought within three years of the alleged act, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise and prove the applicability of the discovery rule.
  • Donnelly v. Eastman 826 A.2d 586 N.H. 2003
    RSA 508:4 provides, in pertinent part, that personal actions “may be brought only within 3 years of the act or omission complained of.” The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and the defendant bears the burden of proving that it applies.
  • Furbush v. McKittrick 821 A.2d 1126 N.H. 2003
    Glines v. Bruk, 140 N.H. 180, 181 (1995); see also Evans v. Rudy-Luther Toyota, Inc., 39 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1184 (D. Minn. 1999).
  • Dobe v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Health & Human Services 791 A.2d 184 N.H. 2002
    its causal relationship to the act or omission were not discovered and could not reasonably have been discovered at the time of the act or omission.” Once a defendant has established that the statute of limitations would bar an action, the plaintiff has the burden of raising and proving that the discovery rule is applicable to an action that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.
  • Pichowicz v. Watson Insurance Agency, Inc. 768 A.2d 1048 N.H. 2001
    RSA 508:4, I. The plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that the discovery rule applies.
  • Fothergill v. Seabreeze Condominiums at Hampton Ass'n 677 A.2d 696 N.H. 1996
    Although this defense frequently appears in motions to dismiss, see, e.g., Glines v. Bruk, 140 N.H. 180, 181, 664 A.2d 79, 80 (1995); McCollum v. D’Arcy, 138 N.H. 285, 286, 638 A.2d 797, 798 (1994); Black Bear Lodge v. Trillium Corp., 136 N.H. 635, 636, 620 A.2d 428, 428 (1993), it occasionally surfaces in summary judgment motions as well, see, e.g., Bronstein v. GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc., 140 N.H. 253, 254, 665 A.