Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Appeal of Liberty Assembly of God
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2012-05-22 · cited 6×
The case involved Liberty Assembly of God appealing the City of Concord's 2008 decision, upheld by the New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals, to grant only a partial religious use tax exemption on the church's property under RSA 72:23, III. The City determined that portions of the main building, including apartments, storage areas, a second-floor bathroom, and some land, were not used directly for religious purposes and thus taxable, while exempting the sanctuary, offices, and parsonage. The court affirmed the BTLA ruling after reviewing the statutory requirements for exemption, finding that the disputed spaces did not qualify as owned, used, and occupied directly for religious training or purposes, and rejecting claims of unconstitutional government entanglement with religion or that the statute mandates full exemption for houses of worship.
religious libertytaxesproperty
In Re Dube
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2012-05-11 · cited 12×
This case involved a divorce action in which the husband sought a fault-based divorce after the wife, during an argument, threatened to kill family members and burn down the marital home, leading to her conviction and imprisonment for attempted arson and criminal mischief. The trial court granted the divorce on fault grounds based on the wife's conviction, divided the marital property unequally in the husband's favor, denied the wife's alimony request, and adopted a stipulated parenting plan giving the husband primary responsibility for their child. On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the fault-based divorce, holding that the husband was not an 'innocent party' under RSA 458:7 because he had committed adultery, which would independently support a divorce claim. The court affirmed the unequal property division, finding it supported by special circumstances including the parties' relative debts and the need to provide a home for the child, and upheld the denial of alimony and the parenting plan on procedural grounds.
family lawproperty
State v. Willey
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2012-05-01 · cited 16×
In State v. Willey, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of pattern aggravated felonious sexual assault against his daughter, based on evidence of repeated assaults beginning when she was fifteen. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's denial of a mistrial or additional curative instructions after testimony from a state trooper that allegedly implied other misconduct, as well as the sentencing court's consideration of improper factors such as his exercise of constitutional rights. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial judge may have relied on the defendant's decision to go to trial or other protected conduct. The core reasoning focused on preserving the conviction where any prejudice was cured or harmless, while requiring a fresh sentencing determination free from constitutional violations.
criminal lawprocedure
Surprenant v. MULCRONE
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2012-04-20 · cited 8×
The case involved a father suing the court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) for his son, claiming that statements in her report about his undisclosed criminal history were negligently made and breached an implied contract. The trial court dismissed the claims based on absolute quasi-judicial immunity, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the GAL's duties of investigating and reporting to the court are integral to the judicial process, thus entitling her to immunity even for allegedly negligent acts. The plaintiff's status as an attorney did not change the analysis, as immunity depends on the nature of the acts performed.
family lawtorts & liability
State v. Davidson
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2012-04-10 · cited 11×
In State v. Davidson, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of simple assault and one count of criminal mischief arising from a domestic dispute with his live-in partner that escalated into physical contact, a damaged door, and a car incident. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's admission of evidence suggesting he was controlling and its refusal to instruct the jury on defense of property. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting the challenged evidence under Rule 404(b), but reversed the denial of the defense-of-property instruction and remanded, reasoning that RSA 627:8 permits force to prevent any reasonably apparent unlawful taking of property and does not require proof of theft, as confirmed by legislative history and prior case law.
criminal lawproperty
State v. Ortiz
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2012-04-10 · cited 11×
The case involved a defendant who entered a nolo contendere plea to a shoplifting misdemeanor without being advised by the court of potential immigration consequences. After removal proceedings began, she sought to withdraw her plea, arguing it was not knowing due to lack of advice on deportation risks. The court affirmed the denial of her motion, holding that immigration consequences are collateral rather than direct consequences of a plea, so due process does not require courts to inform defendants of them. The decision reasoned that Padilla v. Kentucky applies to counsel's obligations but not to the trial court's duties in accepting pleas, and this applies under both state and federal constitutions.
criminal lawprocedureimmigration