NHCaseLaw.com

DUGGAN, J. The petitioner, Vicky Morton, appeals two decisions of the New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) ruling that: (1) the proper remedy for her layoff did not include reinstatement to her previous position; and (2) that she did not meet the minimum qualifications for the position of Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs. We consolidated the two appeals and affirm.

DUGGAN, J. The petitioner, Dan’s City Auto Body (Dan’s City), appeals an order of the Penalty Appeals Board (PAB) of the New Hampshire Department of Labor (NHDOL), which imposed a penalty of $20,000 for 125 violations of New Hampshire labor laws. We hold that the evidence was insufficient to support 105 of the cited violations, but was sufficient to support the other twenty. Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part.

GALWAY, J. The petitioner, Donald W. Murdock, appeals the decision of the New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) affirming his dismissal from employment by the respondent, the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT), following his receipt of three written warnings for the same offense within a five-year period. N.H. Admin. Rules, Per 1001.08(b)(1) (current version at 1002.08(c)(1)). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The petitioners, Robert and Arline Nenni, seek a declaratory ruling that the New Hampshire Insurance Department ("the NHID") must enforce certain statutory provisions and administrative rules related to the sale of annuities. The respondent objects. Before the court are the petitioners' motion to amend and the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions, their arguments, and the applicable law, the Court finds and rules as follows.

HICKS, J. The petitioners, James Geekie, William Roach, III, William Roach, IV, James Roach, Robin Hughes, Richard Cornish, Brian Manougian and Mark Warrington, appeal a decision of the New Hampshire Department of Labor (DOL) dismissing their claims under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (the Act), RSA chapter 275-E (1999 & Supp. 2007). The respondent, Pease Development Authority, Division of Ports and Harbors (division), cross-appeals. We affirm.

GALWAY, J. The plaintiff, North Country Environmental Services (NCES), appeals an order of the Superior Court (Lynn, C.J.) ruling in favor of the defendant, State of New Hampshire (State), on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. We affirm.

NADEAU, J. The defendant, City of Manchester (city), appeals a decision by the Trial Court (Lynn, J.) that interprets RSA 485:14 (2001) to require approval by the voters of each municipality in which residents use water provided by the Manchester Water Works (MWW) before MWW can provide fluoridated water to any residents of the community. We affirm.

The State of New Hampshire Fish and Game Department ("the State") moves for summary judgment in Docket No. 01-E-162, in which the Merrymeeting Lake Association and Nancy and Eleanor Bryant (collectively, "the plaintiffs") appeal from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Wetlands Council's denial of their Motion for Reconsideration. The plaintiffs object.

The instant proceeding arises out of Freedom Partners, LLC's ("Freedom") unsuccessful petition to operate as a utility and participate in the retail electricity market in New Hampshire. Freedom asserts that, as a result of its petition to the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission ("the Commission"), competition was introduced into the electricity industry. Freedom contends that it is entitled to a portion of the ensuing savings enjoyed by New Hampshire citizens because of the role it played in reducing the price of electricity in this state. On April 22, 2002, this Court granted a motion to dismiss filed by Public Service Company of New Hampshire ("Public Service Company"). Presently before the Court is Freedom's Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of that order.

This case arises out of a dispute between Mr. Brian Lamy (“petitioner”) and the Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”), in which the PUC denied the petitioner’s request to disclose the names and addresses of Public Service of New Hampshire (“PSNH”) customers who had submitted voltage complaints to PSNH between July 1, 1999 and August 1, 2003. Before the Court is the petitioner’s request for injunctive relief to require disclosure of those names and addresses, pursuant to New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law. Also before the Court is the petitioner’s supplemental request for the PUC to release documents related to a Request for Proposals (“RFPs”) issued in connection with the PUC’s investigation of PSNH service in the Town of Bedford, New Hampshire.