Motion for Clarification

Christie v. Town of Durham, et al., 00-E-069 (Strafford, May. 25, 2000)

The plaintiff files this Motion for Clarification claiming the information produced from the Town's legal bills is insufficient to comply with this court's final order. For the reasons stated in this order, the Motion is denied.

Bregy v. Michel, 05-C-095 (Strafford, Feb. 10, 2006)

The court (Fauver, J.) issued an order on February 13, 2006, stating, in pertinent part: [T]he plaintiff requests "complete copies of any and all, documents received by you, your insurance company, or anyone on your behalf relating to the claims made by any and all parties in this case relating to the [subject accident]." The defendant objects, arguing this request is extremely overbroad and any letters and communications between the defendant and his counsel are subject to the attorney-client privilege. The court finds the insurance adjuster's claims file is not subject to the work product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege and may make any fact of consequence more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Thus, the defendant is ordered to disclose the insurance adjuster's claims file to the plaintiff. With respect to the remaining portion of the plaintiff s request, the court finds it is overly broad, burdensome, and vague.

Churchill Realty Trust v. City of Dover Zoning Board of Adjustment, 2007-043 (N.H. S.Ct., Jan. 15, 2008)

HICKS, J. The petitioner, Churchill Realty Trust, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Mohl, J.) affirming a decision of the respondent, City of Dover Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA), which in turn upheld a denial by the Dover building official of the petitioner’s proposed apartment project expansion. We reverse.

Freedom Partners, LLC v. Public Service Company of New Hampshire, 02-E-39 (Hillsborough, North, Jun. 14, 2002)

The instant proceeding arises out of Freedom Partners, LLC's ("Freedom") unsuccessful petition to operate as a utility and participate in the retail electricity market in New Hampshire. Freedom asserts that, as a result of its petition to the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission ("the Commission"), competition was introduced into the electricity industry. Freedom contends that it is entitled to a portion of the ensuing savings enjoyed by New Hampshire citizens because of the role it played in reducing the price of electricity in this state. On April 22, 2002, this Court granted a motion to dismiss filed by Public Service Company of New Hampshire ("Public Service Company"). Presently before the Court is Freedom's Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of that order.
Syndicate content