NHCaseLaw.com

Before the Court is petitioner's Petition for Injunctive and Other Relief Pursuant to RSA 91-A, New Hampshire's Right-to-Know Law, seeking disclosure of certain documents and information from respondent. The Court held a hearing on this matter on May 27, 2003. Based upon the parties arguments, the evidence presented at hearing and the relevant law, the Court GRANTS petitioner's request.

This is a medical malpractice action brought by the plaintiffs, Philip J. ("Philip") and Catherine ("Catherine") Sica, against the defendants, John C. Britton, M.D. ("Dr. Britton") anal Surgical Associates of Rochester, P.C. The plaintiffs allege Dr. Britton negligently performed a surgery on Philip, causing injuries and losses to Philip and loss of consortium to Catherine. The defendants now move in limine to preclude the plaintiffs from introducing medical expenses written off by Philip's medical care providers. The plaintiffs object. Neither party has requested a hearing on this motion in limine, nor does the court find that a hearing would assist it in determining the pending issue. Accordingly, pursuant to Superior Court Rule 58, the court acts on the pending motion on the basis of the pleadings and record before it.

The petitioner, Sara Realty, LLC, (“Sara Realty”), brings this action against Country Pond Fish and Game Club, Inc. (“CPFGC”), seeking to have the Court declare and rule that CPFGC “has and continues to engage in a private nuisance” by virtue of its “engaging in and allowing . . . outdoor gun shooting activities” without having effectuated “adequate noise control or abatement measures” after its removal of trees and vegetation and its terrain alterations within an area of its property situated close to that of Sara Realty. See particularly Petition for Declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief, III, B. and C. and IV, 1 and 2. The petitioner seeks, as well, to have the Court issue injunctive relief prohibiting CPFGC “from engaging in and allowing any outdoor shooting activities until and unless . . . . [it] has implemented adequate noise control measures.” Id.

DUGGAN, J. In these consolidated cases, the petitioners, Christopher Bennett, Alycia Bennett, and Bennett Landscaping, Inc. (collectively Bennett), appeal two rulings by the Trial Court (McHugh, J.) concerning attorney’s fees. We hold that RSA 676:17, II (Supp. 2007) required the trial court to award attorney’s fees to the respondent, Town of Hampstead (town), because the town prevailed in its action for injunctive relief against the petitioners. We further hold that, because the trial court did not find that Bennett’s due process rights were violated, Bennett is not entitled to attorney’s fees for its declaratory judgment action against the town. Accordingly, we affirm.

The plaintiff, Maida E. Demeule, commenced this negligence action against the defendant, Linda M. Morin-Binder, seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained from a motor vehicle accident in May 2004 ("the accident"). The plaintiff now moves in limine to introduce evidence at trail of medical bills written off by the plaintiffs medical care providers. The defendant objects, The plaintiff also moves to take videotaped depositions. The defendant assents in part. On January 8, 2007, the court held, a hearing on these matters. After a review of the parties' arguments and the applicable law, the court finds and rules as follows.

NOW COMES the plaintiff, Heath Christiansen, by and through his attorneys, Schuster, Buttrey & Wing, P.A., and, by way of Objection to the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment As To The Measure of Medical Expense Damages, respectfully states as follows:

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.

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.

Plaintiffs Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II and Jane Doe III are female student athletes who presently attend, or who have formerly attended, Concord High School. School photographs pertaining to the plaintiffs as student athleteswere discovered on a school-issued laptop computer assigned to William Haubrich, the former athletic director of Concord High School. The students' photographs are alleged by plaintiffs to have been found in proximity to pornographic photographs women who physically resembled the plaintiffs.

The Petitioner seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin the State from disclosing or releasing certain documents which relate to a criminal investigation of the Petitioner conducted by the State. The State objects. The Court held a hearing on this matter on March 3, 2003. For the reasons stated below the Petitioner's Petition for Permanent injunctive Relief is DENIED.