NHCaseLaw.com

BRODERICK, C.J. The petitioner, Town of Rindge, appeals an order of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) granting the respondent, Franklin Pierce University, a tax exemption under RSA 72:12-a (2003) (amended 2006) for its wastewater treatment facility. We affirm.

HICKS, J. The petitioners brought this action in 2005 seeking a declaratory judgment that House Bill (HB) 616, the statute previously governing education funding and allocation, was unconstitutional. At the conclusion of the proceedings below, the Superior Court (Groff, J.) declared the legislation unconstitutional on its face because HB 616 “failed to fulfill [the State’s] duty to define a constitutionally adequate education, failed to determine the cost of an adequate education, . . . failed to satisfy the requirement of accountability, and . . . create[d] a non-uniform tax rate in violation of Part II, Article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution.” Londonderry Sch. Dist. v. State, 154 N.H. 153, 155 (2006).

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:

Per Curiam. The State appeals orders of the Superior Court (Galway, J.) granting the plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment petition, finding the statewide property tax unconstitutional as applied, and requiring the State to repay the $880 million collected under the tax to date. We reverse.

GALWAY, J. The plaintiff, North Country Environmental Services (NCES), appeals an order of the Superior Court (Lynn, C.J.) ruling in favor of the defendant, State of New Hampshire (State), on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. We affirm.

The State appeals a decision of the Superior Court (Groff, J.) finding that the State has failed to fulfill its duty to define a constitutionally adequate education, failed to determine the cost of an adequate education, and failed to satisfy the requirement of accountability, and that House Bill 616 (the current education funding law) creates a non-uniform tax rate in violation of Part II, Article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution. We affirm the trial court’s finding that the State has failed to define a constitutionally adequate education and stay consideration of its remaining findings.

The defendant is charged with Simple Assault, Attempted Murder, and two counts of First Degree Assault. The defendant moves to strike certain language from the indictment in docket number 01-S-681-F (“the indictment”), which charges him with two counts of First Degree Assault. The State objects.

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.

The petitioners are property owners from three different New Hampshire municipalities seeking equitable relief from the statewide education property tax. They filed this Petition for a Declaratory Judgment and for Injunctive Relief requesting that this Court declare the tax unconstitutional, enjoin the State from collecting and distributing this tax, and order the reimbursement of tax dollars already paid and collected under this taxation scheme.