NHCaseLaw.com

DALIANIS, J. The petitioner, Dale Robinson, appeals the order of the Superior Court (Mangones, J.) granting the motion to dismiss filed by the respondent, the New Hampshire Real Estate Commission (Commission), and denying his motion for summary judgment. Both motions concerned a single issue: whether the Commission had jurisdiction to hold a hearing on a complaint alleging that the petitioner engaged in misconduct when selling his own property. See RSA 331-A:4, I (2004). The trial court ruled that the Commission had jurisdiction. We reverse.

NADEAU, J. In these appeals, we are asked to determine whether the Trial Court (Groff, J.) erred in: (1) finding personal jurisdiction over four Massachusetts defendants; and (2) denying the plaintiff’s motion to amend his writ. We affirm and remand.

BRODERICK, C.J. The defendant, Lisa Daine, appeals an order of the Littleton District Court (Cyr, J.) awarding the plaintiff, Daniel Daine, approximately $3,377.00 to cover certain household expenses that were incurred between the time of the filing of a petition for divorce and the final decree. We vacate and dismiss.

Pursuant to RSA 491:22, the plaintiffs seek a decree invalidating a Dover City ordinance which rezoned seven acres of City-owned land. The defendant objects. The court held a hearing on the merits and conducted a view of the subject property. For the reasons that follow, the plaintiffs' petition is GRANTED.

The petitioners, James A. Davala, et al., brought this petition in equity against the respondents, the Town of Merrimack and its Board of Selectmen, seeking damages and other relief arising from the respondents' termination of certain retirement benefit plans. On March 17, 2005, the parties presented a proposed order to the Court, agreeing to bypass the liability phase of trial and to proceed directly to the damages phase, subject to several conditions. That same day, the Court accepted the proposed order. Several motions remain pending before the Court which were submitted both prior to, and following, the date of the aforementioned order. The Court will address these motions below.

GALWAY, J. The juvenile appeals the denial by the Colebrook Family Division (Michalik, J.) of his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

LYNN, C.J. The defendant, George Daaboul, is charged with one count of using a computer on-line service to solicit a person he believed to be a child under age 16 to engage in sexual activity, in violation of RSA 649-B:4 (2007). The defendant has filed two motions to dismiss the indictment. The State objects. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are DENIED.

DALIANIS, J. The petitioner, Donald R. Carreau, seeks to appeal a decision of the respondent, the Board of Trustees of the City of Manchester Employees’ Contributory Retirement System (board), to offset his disability retirement pension by the amount he received from the City of Manchester to settle his workers’ compensation claim. Because we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over his appeal, we dismiss it.

The defendant Donald Foss is charged with failure to provide child support to his two minor children in violation of RSA 639:4. Before the Court are defendant’s three separate motions to dismiss. These include: (1) RSA 639:4 is unconstitutional; (2) the defendant’s indictments are a violation of due process and (3) the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. The defendant also moves the Court to authorize funds that were necessary to hire a constitutional expert in providing an adequate defense. The State objects. The Court held a hearing on this matter on October 16, 2003. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds and rules as follows.

On September 17, 2003, Ford Construction Corp. (“Ford”) commenced this action against TWG Construction Co. (“TWG”) and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust (“Wal-Mart”) (collectively, “the defendants”) to recover $192,692.16 it claims is due for labor and materials it provided in connection with the construction of Wal-Mart Store #3535 (“store #3535”) in Epping, New Hampshire. That same day, Ford also filed a petition for ex parte attachment, which this court granted, seeking to attach store #3535 in the amount of $192,692.16. The defendants subsequently filed an objection to the ex parte attachment, and thereafter moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Ford objects. Upon review of the parties’ pleadings, the contract at issue and the applicable law, the court finds and rules as follows.