Cited by

Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365, 373 (2012).

13 Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365, 377-78 (2012).

Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365, 374 (2012).

“As to judicially-created exceptions, attorney’s fees have been awarded in this State based upon two separate theories: bad faith litigation and substantial benefit.” Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365, 377- 78 (2012) (quotation omitted).

That rule notwithstanding, “[a] prevailing party may be awarded attorney’s fees when that recovery is authorized by statute, an agreement between the parties, or an established judicial exception to the general rule that precludes recovery of such fees.” Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365, 377 (2012) (quotation omitted).

Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365, 377 (2012).

ng.” “Under the bad faith litigation theory, an award of attorney’s fees is appropriate where one party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons, where the litigant’s conduct can be characterized as unreasonably obdurate or obstinate, and where it should have been unnecessary for the successful party to have brought the action.” Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365, 378 (2012) (quotation omitted).

Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365, 378 (2012) (explaining bad faith litigation and substantial benefit theories).

Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365 (2012).

pery slope that parties may go down if they are allowed to disengage from the administrative process.” “The doctrine of primary jurisdiction provides that a court will refrain from exercising its concurrent jurisdiction to decide a question until it has first been decided by the specialized administrative agency that also has jurisdiction to decide it.” Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365, 371 (2012) (quotation omitted).

at 399, and that the relief it obtained in securing the mandamus order conferred a substantial benefit upon the general public, see Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365, 378 (2012).

“We are the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.” Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365, 374 (2012).

“We are the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.” Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365, 374 (2012).

Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365, 375 (2011).

Chase v. Dorais, 122 N.H. 600, 601-02 (1982); cf. Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365, 376 (2012).

‘We will uphold the issuance of an injunction absent an error of law, an unsustainable exercise of discretion, or clearly erroneous findings of fact.” Frost v. Comm’r, N.H. Banking Dep’t, 163 N.H. 365, 374 (2012).

42 A.3d 738 (2012) 163 N.H. 365 Jeffrey FROST and another.