NHCaseLaw.com

This suit under the Right-to-Know Law, RSA Chapter (1) 91-A, was commenced by Weare Powerful, a non-profit group composed of citizens of the Town of Weare ("Town"), against the Town, certain present and former members of the board of selectmen, the town administrator and town counsel, by a petition filed in this court on June 6, 1994.

On September 27, 1993, the Court heard Richard Ball's petition for temporary injunctive relief by way of offers of proof. The relevant facts are as follows.

In deciding whether to grant or deny defendants' motion to dismiss, the court is required by law to consider plaintiffs' pleadings of fact and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from those pleadings as true. Nutter v. Frisbie Mem. Hosp., 124 N.H. 791, 793 (1984). Accordingly, the court considers the following to be true.

The petitioner, Terry M. Bennett brings this action under RSA chapter 91-A seeking an order requiring the respondent, New Hampshire Board of Medicine ("Board"), to hold certain of its deliberations regarding the petitioner in public sessions, and an order voiding actions taken at prior non-public sessions. The Court held a hearing on the matter on December 12, 2005. Considering the parties' arguments and the relevant law, the Court finds and rules as follows.

This is an equity action in which the plaintiffs claim that the defendants have violated RSA 91-A, the Right-to-Know law.

This is a petition by the publisher of a daily newspaper in Nashua, seeking a determination by the Court that the Nashua Board of Alderman violated RSA 91-A, the so called Right-to-Know Law, by meeting in closed session with the Nashua Board of Education. Petitioner also seeks an award of attorney's fees for litigating this matter. For the reasons set forth herein, the petition is GRANTED.

The petitioner, Anne Cioffi, brought this action to enforce her rights under RSA chapter 91-A (the New Hampshire "Right to Know" law). Specifically, she asks the Court to Order the respondent, Town of Sanbornton (the "Town"), to comply with the requirements of the statute. The petitioner also seeks a permanent injunction enjoining the Town from violating the provisions of RSA 91-A and a declaration that copying costs established by the Town are unreasonable. The Town objects. The matter was expedited and heard on the merits from June 21-22, 2001. See RSA 91-A:7. After the matter was submitted, the petitioner filed motions seeking additional relief based on allegations of right-to-know violations occurring after June 22, 2001. The Town denied the violations and, accordingly, objected. Based on its finding of past right-to-know violations, coupled with a finding that the Town has adopted measures to remedy the situation, the relief requested by the petitioner is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as described below.