NHCaseLaw.com

DUGGAN, J. The defendant, Jay S. Weiner, appeals an order of the Hampton District Court (Frasier, J.) granting the request by the plaintiff, Rita MacPherson, to extend a final protective order for an additional five years. See RSA 633:3-a, III-c (2007). We affirm.

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 petitioner, Terry M. Bennett, M.D., originally brought this action challenging the manner in which the New Hampshire Board of Medicine ("Board") had been investigating and adjudicating complaints against him. The petitioner now moves for an injunction barring the Board from taking any further action relative to the complaints against him. The Board objects. The Court held a hearing on the motion on May 11, 2006. Considering the parties' arguments and the relevant law, the Court finds and rules 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.

HICKS, J. The defendant, Michael J. Labranche, Jr., appeals his first degree murder conviction. See RSA 630:1-a (2007). He argues that the Superior Court (Conboy, J.) erred by permitting the State’s expert psychiatrist to testify that the charged offense was not the product of his mental illness. We affirm.

This is a Petition for a Declaratory Judgment by the City of Nashua (“the City”) against the State of New Hampshire (“the State”) seeking a determination that RSA 76:3 and RSA 198:38 through RSA 198:49, as amended by House Bill 616 (“HB 616”), violate the New Hampshire Constitution. On December 13, 2005, the matter came before the Court for a final hearing. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS the petition in part and finds that RSA 76:3 and portions of RSA 198:38 through RSA 198:49, as amended by HB 616, are unconstitutional.