Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Ford v. New Hampshire Department of Transportation, 163 N.H. 284.

14 citing documents.

Appeal of Michael G. Cross N.H. 2024
Ford v. N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 294 (2012).
Appeal of New Hampshire Department of Transportation N.H. 2021
“The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” Ford v. N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 290 (2012) (quotation omitted).
Union Leader Corporation & a. v. Town of Salem N.H. 2020
No single factor is dispositive “because the doctrine of stare decisis is not one to be either rigidly applied or blindly followed.” Ford v. N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 290 (2012).
Seacoast Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Portsmouth N.H. 2020
Ford v. N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 290 (2012).
Robert Gormley & a. v. Rough Diamond Development, LLC & a. N.H. 2020
Ford v. N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 290 (2012).
Followed Curtis S. Ridlon v. New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation N.H. 2019
Ford v. N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 290 (2012) (discussing the doctrine of stare decisis).
State of New Hampshire v. Ronald Martin N.H. 2018
Ford v. N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 290 (2012) (declining to overrule prior decision when appellant had not briefed stare decisis factors).
Appeal of Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, Appeal of Public Service Company of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy 186 A.3d 865 N.H. 2018
163 N.H. 284, 296, 37 A.3d 436 (2012); Appeal of Psychiatric Institutes of America, 132 N.H. 177, 183, 564 A.2d 818 (1989).
Lynette Maryea v. Thomas Velardi & A 168 N.H. 633 N.H. 2016
It cites Ford v. New Hampshire Department of Transportation, 163 N.H. 284 (2012), for the 2 proposition that “[t]he existence of immunity for discretionary functions is fundamental to [New Hampshire’s] system of separation of powers.” Ford, 163 N.H. at 294.
State of New Hampshire v. Shawn Abbott N.H. 2015
Ford v. N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 290 (2012) (explaining our stare decisis doctrine).
Kenneth England v. Maria Brianas 166 N.H. 369 N.H. 2014
Ford v. N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 288 (2012).
Appeal of Phillips 165 N.H. 226 N.H. 2013
“The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” Ford v. N.H. Dep’t. of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 290 (2012) (quotation omitted).
Maplevale Builders, LLC v. Town of Danville 70 A.3d 427 N.H. 2013
Even if we were to agree with the petitioners that Van Lunen was incorrectly decided or poorly reasoned, “[p]rineipled application of stare decisis requires a court to adhere even to poorly reasoned precedent in the absence of some special reason over and above the belief that a prior case was wrongly decided.” Ford v. N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 290 (2012) (quotation omitted).
EnergyNorth Natural Gas, Inc. v. City of Concord 48 A.3d 960 N.H. 2012
Ford v. N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 294 (2012).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by