NHCaseLaw.com

Before the Court are several Motions in Limine seeking to exclude certain evidence and testimony, of certain witnesses. A hearing was held on November 29, 2007. By agreement, counsel appeared telephonically. The Court enters the following orders with respect to each motion.

HICKS, J. The appellant, Fire Casualty Insurance Co. of CT (carrier), insurance carrier for the White Mountain School District (district), appeals the decision of the New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board (board) ruling that it must pay certain medical bills of the claimant, Lewis Mello. We reverse and remand.

The plaintiff, Carolyn Dickerson, has brought suit against her former employer, the defendant, Roger Phillips, D.M.D., alleging wrongful termination. Before the Court is the defendant's motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

This matter arises out of an alleged phone-jamming scheme during the November 2002 election. The background of this matter has been summarized in earlier orders. Therefore, the Court proceeds directly to the merits of the pending motions to dismiss, regarding which a hearing was held on April 11, 2006.

The plaintiff, Corey Corbin, brought the instant action against defendants, Talarico Pontiac-Cadillac, Inc. ("TPC"), and Stephen Talarico. In the writ, the plaintiff asserts the following four counts against the defendant(s): (1) Discrimination, Harassment, Hostile Environment at TPC and Aiding and Abetting Therein by Mr. Talarico Based on SexualOrientation; (2) Wrongful Discharge; (3) Slander/Libel; and (4) Invasion of Privacy. Thedefendants now move to dismiss Counts III and IV. The court heard argument on the defendants' motion on April 21, 2004. The plaintiff agreed to dismiss the claim for invasion of privacy against Mr. Talarico individually, conceding the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. For the reasons discussed herein, the defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Lisa Brown appeals the January 31, 2002 decision of the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights (the "Commission") finding no probable cause that her employer, Ever Better Eating, Inc. ("EBE") was responsible for sexual harassment that occurred at the workplace. EBE moves for summary judgment. Ms. Brown objects, and also moves for summary judgment. After considering the parties' motions, the Court finds and rules as follows.

The petitioner, Acadia Insurance Company ("Acadia"), has filed a petition for declaratory judgment requesting that the court declare its obligations pursuant to insurance policies issued to the defendant, Four Star Flooring, Inc. ("Four Star"), void. Acadia seeks to avoid its insurance obligations due to the alleged fraudulent conduct of defendants, John Kallelis ("Kallelis") and Theresa Nenni ("Nenni"), formerly known as Theresa Kallelis, in filing claims for workers' compensation and underinsured motorist benefits. Nenni has filed three motions to dismiss the equity petition, all to which Acadia has objected. Upon consideration of the parties' pleadings, and for the reasons set forth herein, the court finds and rules as follows.

On May 10, 1993, the Court held a hearing on the above-captioned action. The plaintiffs are citizens and taxpayers of New Hampshire who reside in Lee, Durham, or Madbury. These towns are in School Administrative Unit #5 (hereinafter "SAU 5"), which is made up of the Oyster River Cooperative School District (hereinafter the District"). The defendant, John Powers, is the superintendent of SAU 5. The defendant Oyster River School Board (hereinafter *the Board") has the authority to negotiate collective bargaining agreements with the Oyster River Teachers' Guild of SAU 5. Based upon the evidence presented, the Court finds the following facts.

The respondent, Town of Merrimack, moves this Court to reconsider its order in which it enjoined the respondent from certain retirement plans established by the respondent for the petitioners. The respondent advocates that the petitioners are not likely to succeed on the merits, that monetary damages will provide an adequate remedy at law, that the balance of harms weighs in favor of the respondent, and that the injunction should not have been issued because the petitioners brought this action in the wrong venue. For the reasons set forth below, the respondent's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The petitioners seek an award of costs and pre judgment interest. The respondents object. Based upon the parties submissions, and the relevant law, the Court finds and rules as follows.