NHCaseLaw.com

BRODERICK, C.J. The petitioners, Preston T. Kelsey, II, Virginia R. Kelsey, Dirk J. Van Leeuwen, Frank Holloway, Ann Holloway, Robert McLaughry and Ann McLaughry, appeal the decision of the Superior Court (Vaughan, J.) upholding the dismissal of their appeal of a zoning permit granted by the respondent, the Town of Hanover (Town), to Jerry and Claire Strochlic. We affirm.

In this civil action, the plaintiff, MBNA America Bank, NA ("MBNA"), seeks to enforce an arbitration award against the defendant, Troy T. Cornock ("the defendant"). Presently before the Court is the defendant's motion for summary judgment. MBNA objects. After consideration of the parties' pleadings, evidence, argument, and applicable law, the Court grants the defendant's motion.

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:

DUGGAN, J. The defendant, Scott Abram, appeals the sentence imposed by the Trial Court (McGuire, J.) upon remand from our decision in State v. Abram, 153 N.H. 619 (2006). We vacate and remand.

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 petitioner, Edward Correia, seeks review of the decision of the respondent board of selection ("board") of the Town of Alton ("town") to terminate him. See RSA 41:48. Specifically, Mr. Correia argues that the board lacked sufficient cause to discharge him and that a number of procedural errors deprived him of procedural due process. The town objects, asserting that the discharge was lawful and the procedures afforded to Mr. Correia were sufficient to satisfy due process requirements. Because Mr. Correia has sustained his burden of showing that the board failed to appoint a substitute member as required by RSA 43:7, the decision is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED for a new hearing.