NHCaseLaw.com

DUGGAN, J. Greg and Gail Taylor, trustees of Shady Acres Realty Trust, challenge a Superior Court (Fitzgerald, J.) order affirming a decision of the Town of Wakefield Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) granting, with conditions, an equitable waiver for a thirty-five-foot wide waterfront access easement from land owned by intervenors Peter and Amy Harrington over the Taylors’ waterfront lot. Because we conclude that the superior court erred in concluding that the evidence supported the ZBA finding that the intervenors met the requirements of RSA 674:33-a, I(b) (2006), we reverse.

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.

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.

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.

On July 22, 2003, the petitioner, Henry G Carnevale, filed an ex parte request for a restraining order. The court denied the request on an exparte basis and directed the scheduling of a hearing on an expedited basis. The hearing after notice was scheduled this day. The petitioner appeared pro se. The respondent appeared with counsel. Because the petitioner has not satisfied the court that he is likely to prevail on the merits, suffer irreparable harm, or lacks an adequate remedy at law, his request for a restraining order is DENIED.

The plaintiff filed this petition pursuant to RSA chapter 91-A, the Right-to-Know Law, seeking disclosure of billing statements submitted to the Town of Durham by the law firm of Upton, Sanders & Smith. The Town has provided the plaintiff with redacted copies of the billing statements, showing only the dates when services were rendered, the time spent, and the total amount billed. The Town asserts its attorney-client privilege with respect to the remaining information contained in the bills.

The petitioners, James A. Davala, et al., bring a petition in equity against the respondents, the Town of Merrimack and its Board of Selectmen, to enjoin the respondents from terminating certain retirement benefit plans established by the respondents. Further, the petitioners ask that the respondents be ordered to continue contributing to such retirement benefit plans for those employees who relied on the plans for their retirement. The Court held a preliminary hearing on the petitioners' requests on June 25, 2004. For the following reasons the petitioner's request for injunctive relief is GRANTED as to those employees who are currently members of the retirement benefit plans and the Court ORDERS the respondents to continue contributing to the retirement benefit plans for those persons.