Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff The Sunapee Difference, LLC appealed: (1) a superior court order that granted summary judgment to the State on Sunapee’s claims for breach of contract, equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, reformation, and inverse condemnation; and (2) an order partially granting the State's motion to dismiss Sunapee's inverse condemnation claim. The State appealed the superior court's order that ruled Sunapee had standing to bring a reformation claim. The matter arose from a management proposal and lease authorized by the New Hampshire legislature with regard to a ski area at Mount Sunapee State Park. The Capital Budget Overview Committee approved the Lease; a month later, the State produced a map and property description with the metes and bounds of the leasehold area. Sunapee discovered that the northern and western leasehold boundaries described in the Lease were not coterminous with those of the state park. At some time during the lease period, Sunapee had proposed expanding the ski area to the east. Sunapee obtained options to buy privately-owned land bordering the western boundary of the state park. Because the leasehold and state park boundaries were not described as coterminous in the Lease, this land could not be used for expansion without including buffer land in the leasehold. Accordingly, Sunapee requested that the State approve inclusion of the buffer land in an amendment to the Lease. Based upon the State's assurances that it favored the western expansion plan as long as Sunapee satisfied certain conditions, Sunapee exercised the purchase options for $2.1 million. A new governor was elected during the pendency of Sunapee's expansion plans. The new governor strongly opposed Sunapee's plans for expansion. The Governor refused to bring the proposed expansion before the Executive Council. Sunapee subsequently sued the State for damages or alternatively, mandamus relief, alleging breach of contract. Upon review, the Supreme Court: (1) found that there were issues of material facts with regard to breach of contract, estoppel and inverse condemnation, and reversed the trial court with respect to those claims; (2) found that Sunapee had standing to bring the reformation claim; and (3) affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment with regard to the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Sunapee Difference, LLC v. New Hampshire" on Justia Law

Petitioner Town of Bartlett Board of Selectmen appealed a superior court order that upheld a decision of the Town of Bartlett Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) finding that a sign erected by intervenor River Run Company, Inc. (River Run) was permitted under the Town's zoning ordinance. Upon review of the applicable ordinances and the superior court record, the Supreme Court found no error in the superior court's decision and affirmed. View "Town of Bartlett Board of Selectmen v. Town of Bartlett Zoning Board of Adjustment" on Justia Law

Petitioners Steve and Laura Trefethen appealed a superior court order that dismissed their appeal from a Town of Derry Zoning Board of Adjustment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Board concluded that the petitioners' appeal was untimely filed, but the Supreme Court disagreed. The decision was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Trefethen v. Town of Derry" on Justia Law

Defendant Kevin Guay appealed his convictions for two counts of unlawful operation of a solid waste facility, and one count of unlawful maintenance of a subsurface septic system. Defendant was a land developer and operated a junk removal business. A neighbor called police to report hazardous materials buried on Defendant's property. Department of Environmental Services (DES) investigators unearthed (among other items): a home heating oil tank, carpeting, old mattresses, foam insulation, a metal stove, shingles, wiring, a hot tub broken into pieces, and paint cans; above-the-ground items included mattresses, appliances, chairs, couches, ceiling tiles, a snowmobile, an oil tank, metal debris, and insulation, the majority of which had been exposed to the elements and were not in usable condition. An investigator observed liquid on top of defendant's septic system and a garden hose attached to a sump pump that channeled untreated brown water from the septic tank, bypassing the leach field, and discharging liquid in the direction of the Turkey River. Based on investigators' observations, the State charged defendant with three misdemeanors. After a week-long trial, a jury convicted him on all counts. On appeal, defendant argued that RSA 485-A:37 did not allow the State to charge him with a misdemeanor because the statutory penalty was civil forfeiture. Furthermore, defendant argued he was entitled to a new trial under the plain error doctrine because certain "[i]nadmissible evidence concerning witness credibility was presented at trial and discussed in closing argument." Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed with defendant's interpretation of RSA 485-A:37, and concluded that in light of other evidence admitted at trial, defendant could not demonstrate that the "inadmissible evidence concerning witness credibility" affected the outcome of his case. Accordingly the Court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Guay" on Justia Law

Defendant Robin Lukas appealed a superior court decision that denied her motion to dismiss the indictment against her for theft by unauthorized taking, a class B felony. The only issue on appeal was whether defendant, having been convicted twice of class A misdemeanors in another state, could be charged with a class B in New Hampshire. Defendant argued that her prior out-of-state convictions could not be considered for the purposes of enhancing her New Hampshire conviction. Having reviewed the plain language of the applicable New Hampshire statute, the Supreme Court disagreed with defendant's interpretation and affirmed the superior court having used the out-of-state convictions to enhance her New Hampshire sentence, and for denying defendant's motion to dismiss. View "New Hampshire v. Lukas" on Justia Law

Defendant Matthew Blunt appealed a circuit court order that denied his motion to strike the imposition of class A misdemeanor sentences following his conviction of simple assault and resisting arrest. On appeal to the Supreme Court, defendant argued that the trial court's sentences were unlawful because the complaints under which he was convicted alleged only class B misdemeanors. Specifically, he contended that the trial court was required to treat both complaints as alleging class B misdemeanors because: (1) neither complaint alleged a crime that involved as an element an act of violence or a threat of violence; and (2) the State did not file notice of its intent to seek class A penalties on or before the date of his arraignment on a form approved for this purpose by the judicial branch administrative council. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that neither the simple assault complaint nor the resisting arrest complaint required that an act of violence be involved as an element of the offense. Furthermore, the Court held that merely checking the "class A misdemeanor" box on the standard complaint form did not constitute compliance with statute, and that defendant's two convictions were actually class B misdemeanors. Accordingly, the Court vacated the sentences imposed and remanded the case back to the district division for resentencing. View "New Hampshire v. Blunt" on Justia Law

Defendant Ryan Martin appealed a superior court ruling that sentenced him to both a stand-committed prison term of one to three years and probation for two years. Finding no error nor abuse of discretion in the superior court's sentence, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's ultimate sentence. View "New Hampshire v. Martin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Mark Case appealed a superior court order that granted summary judgment to defendant St. Mary's Bank and denied his cross-motion for summary judgment on his claims that the bank engaged in trespass and violated state law and the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The matter arose from the bank's foreclosure on property Plaintiff leased from his landlord, Jean Marcelin. Months before the foreclosure sale, pipes burst in an apartment above plaintiff's, causing a flood. The City of Manchester turned off water and electricity to the building. Plaintiff spoke about the problem to Marcelin, who denied that he still owned the property. Plaintiff then spoke about the problem to a Bank representative; the representative asked plaintiff to allow her, a plumber, and an electrician into the building. The plaintiff complied with this request. The City placed a legal notice on the property’s front door, stating that it was unsafe and prohibiting occupancy. Plaintiff had not resided at the property since the flood, though most of his possessions remained at the property. When the Bank allowed him access to the apartment to remove his possessions, plaintiff observed that his apartment door was "wide open" and subsequently alleged that many of his possessions were missing. Finding no error with the superior court order, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision. View "Case v. St. Mary's Bank " on Justia Law

Defendant Nicholas Trebian was convicted by jury of possessing marijuana with the intent to sell, and possession of a controlled drug (ecstasy). On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the ecstasy possession charge. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed defendant's conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Trebian " on Justia Law

Defendant Amato Russo appealed his conviction by jury on two counts of theft by deception and two alternative counts of theft by unauthorized taking. He argued on appeal that the superior court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial and by allowing standby counsel to participate in the trial. Further, he argued that the court erred when it imposed an extended prison term. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court. View "New Hampshire v. Russo" on Justia Law