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 Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 703 A.2d 890.

22 citing documents.

  • Robert Jesurum v. WBTSCC Limited Partnership & a. 151 A.3d 949 N.H. 2016
    s contend that, because the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of the existence of a prescriptive easement, we must review de novo the trial court’s application of law to the facts and “look at the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537 (1997).
  • Sunapee Difference, LLC v. State 66 A.3d 138 N.H. 2013
    Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537 (1997) (quotation, citation, and brackets omitted).
  • Premier Capital, LLC v. Skaltsis 934 A.2d 496 N.H. 2007
    rovision is necessary to determine whether the defendants are correct that our decision in Cadle effectively overruled Cross “without actually citing [it] and without stating why the Cadle decision was stating new law.” When New Hampshire’s general statute of limitations was first enacted in 1791, “notes secured by mortgages were completely exempt from the statute.” Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 538 (1997).
  • State v. Holmes 920 A.2d 632 N.H. 2007
    Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 539 (1997).
  • Cadle Co. v. Dejadon 904 A.2d 605 N.H. 2006
    RSA 508:6 establishes a twenty-year statute of limitations for notes secured by mortgages on real property.” Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537 (1997).
  • Estate of Joshua T. v. State 840 A.2d 768 N.H. 2003
    Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537 (1997).
  • Preferred National Insurance v. Docusearch, Inc. 829 A.2d 1068 N.H. 2003
    Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537 (1997).
  • Big League Entertainment, Inc. v. Brox Industries, Inc. 821 A.2d 1054 N.H. 2003
    Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537 (1997).
  • In re Estate of Raduazo 814 A.2d 147 N.H. 2002
    Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537 (1997).
  • Sintros v. Hamon 810 A.2d 553 N.H. 2002
    Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537 (1997).
  • Pierson v. Hubbard 802 A.2d 1162 N.H. 2002
    Collectramatic, Inc. v. Kentucky Fried Chicken *762 Corp., 127 N.H. 318, 320 (1985); Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencker, 142 N.H. 535, 537 (1997).
  • Palmer v. Nan King Restaurant, Inc. 798 A.2d 583 N.H. 2002
    Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537 (1997).
  • Lower Village Hydroelectric Associates, L.P. v. City of Claremont 782 A.2d 897 N.H. 2001
    Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537 (1997).
  • Morse v. Goduti 777 A.2d 292 N.H. 2001
    In reviewing the superior court’s grant of summary judgment, “we look at the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537 (1997).
  • East Coast Conference of the Evangelical Covenant Church of America, Inc. v. Town of Swanzey 786 A.2d 88 N.H. 2001
    Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 539 (1997).
  • Merchants Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Arbella Protection Insurance 764 A.2d 883 N.H. 2000
    Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537, 703 A.2d 890, 892 (1997) (citations and brackets omitted).
  • Averill v. Cox 761 A.2d 1083 N.H. 2000
    We presume that the legislature was aware of our prior decisions exempting attorneys from the Act, see State v. Hermsdorf 135 N.H. 360, 363, 605 A.2d 1045, 1047 (1992), and has adopted our construction of the Act by amending other sections of the statute while failing to amend it to include lawyers, see Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 539, 703 A.2d 890, 893 (1997).
  • Iannelli v. Burger King Corp. 761 A.2d 417 N.H. 2000
    Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537, 703 A.2d 890, 892 (1997).
  • New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Rochester 740 A.2d 135 N.H. 1999
    “In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we look at the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537, 703 A.2d 890, 892 (1997).
  • Trovato v. Deveau 736 A.2d 1212 N.H. 1999
    While RSA 556:13, on its face, sheds no light on the purpose of the cap, a review of the statute’s legislative history, Chagnon v. Union-Leader Co., 104 N.H. 472, 476, 190 A.2d 721, 724 (1963) (law interpreted in light of its legislative history), and prior amendments, Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 538, 703 A.2d 890, 892 (1997) (statute’s predecessors offer additional aid), reveals a legislative intent to limit wrongful death recovery for decedents without dependent relatives on t
  • Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro 740 A.2d 1019 N.H. 1999
    II “In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we look at the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537, 703 A.2d 890, 892 (1997).
  • Hopkins v. Fleet Bank 724 A.2d 1287 N.H. 1999
    Del Norte, Inc. v. Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537, 703 A.2d 890, 892 (1997).