NHCaseLaw.com

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 State has filed a motion to dismiss the above-captioned equity action for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs object to this motion and have filed a motion for summary judgment. The State concedes that there are no issues of material fact in dispute, but asserts that if the Court does 'not dismiss this action, summary judgment should be entered for the State, not the plaintiffs. A hearing on this matter was held on January 2, 1992. The undisputed facts are as follows:

The plaintiffs, Chris Arnoldy ("Arnoldy") and Rebecca Drummond ("Drummond"), have brought a civil action against the City of Manchester ("the City"), the Manchester Police Department ("the Police Department"), and Manchester Police Officer Stephen Coco ("Coco"). This action arises out of Officer Coco's alleged shooting of the plaintiffs' dog, "Toby," in a local park. The City and the Police Department move to dismiss all counts of the action. In addition, Coco has filed a motion to dismiss two of the counts.

The plaintiffs, Frederick Amoche ("Amoche") and Jon Valliere ("Valliere") initiated this cause of action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against the defendant, Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company ("GTL"). The plaintiffs each purchased credit life and credit disability insurance issued by the defendant insurer, as part of a retail installment sales contract for the purchase of an automobile. The plaintiffs are asserting five claims arising from the defendant's alleged breach of its contractual, statutory and fiduciary obligations to refund unearned premiums to the plaintiffs upon early loan repayment. The defendant now moves to dismiss all counts, arguing that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted [13]. The defendant also specifically moves to dismiss Valliere's claims. The plaintiffs object. For the reasons stated in this order, the defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED.

BRODERICK, C.J. The defendant, Russell Bullis, Jr., appeals an order of the Portsmouth Family Division (DeVries, J.), entered on the recommendation of a Marital Master (Fishman, M.), denying his motion to dismiss a domestic violence petition filed by his wife, the plaintiff, Cintia Tosta. He also appeals the trial court’s order granting her a final domestic violence protective order after a hearing. See RSA 173-B:5 (Supp. 2007). We reverse.

The plaintiff, M. Elaine Tefft, instituted this action against the defendant, the Bedford School District (district), seeking an order from this court either (1) requiring that Article 1 of the warrant for an upcoming special school district meeting be divided into two separate questions or, alternatively, (2) enjoining the district from proceeding with a vote on Article 1 for a period of six months in order to “afford both parties the opportunity for complete due process.”

The petitioners, fifteen court stenographers currently employed with the New Hampshire Superior Court (“the superior court”), collectively bring this Petition for Declaratory Judgment requesting the court determine that respondents, the Administrative Office of the Courts (“the AOC”) and the New Hampshire Supreme Court (“the supreme court”), are equitably estopped from terminating petitioners as employees of the State of New Hampshire except for just cause based on poor individual job performance or misconduct. The respondents object and move to dismiss the petitioners’ petition, asserting, inter alia: (1) the petitioners have an adequate remedy at law and are therefore precluded from bringing this action in equity; and (2) the petition must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court conducted a hearing on May 21, 2004. For the following reasons, the respondents’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

The plaintiff and her husband file this lawsuit seeking damages for injuries the plaintiff sustained when she was hit in the head with a softball during a slow-pitch softball tournament on September 13, 1998. At the time, the plaintiff was a member of the Dover Co-Recreational Softball League. The plaintiff became injured after a male shortstop allegedly negligently threw the ball while she was running to first base. The defendants move to dismiss all counts on several grounds, including a claim that the defendants owed the plaintiff no duty of care. For the reasons stated in this order, the court grants the motion to dismiss as to all counts.