Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Respondent Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) appealed a superior court decision that vacated decision of the New Hampshire Motor Vehicle Industry Board (Board) and ruled that RSA chapter 357-C rendered unenforceable a provision of a written settlement agreement between Nissan and petitioner, Strike Four, LLC, a Nissan dealer. Nissan also appealed the superior court's ruling that it was entitled to neither specific performance of the settlement agreement nor attorney's fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision, but vacated that court's dismissal of Nissan's claim for attorney fees. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Strike Four, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc." 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

The City of Nashua appealed a New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) ruling that taxpayer Marijane Kennedy was entitled to an "elderly exemption" under RSA 72:39-a (2012) for the 2011 tax year. Upon review of the applicable statute and the facts on record in this case, the Supreme Court found that the BTLA erred in its interpretation and accordingly reversed. View "Appeal of City of Nashua" on Justia Law

Petitioner Eric Johnson appealed a New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) decision finding insufficient evidence to support his claim that Respondent New Hampshire Troopers Association (Union) breached its duty of fair representation. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that there was insufficient evidence to support Petitioner's claim, and affirmed the PELRB's decision. View "Appeal of Eric Johnson " on Justia Law

Petitioners Stephen Bartlett and others, appealed a superior court order that vacated a City of Manchester Zoning Board of Adjustment decision which granted intervenor Brookside Congregational Church a variance. Although petitioners asked the trial court to reverse the ZBA's decision, they appealed the court's order because it ruled that Brookside's proposed use and similar uses of its property were permitted as accessory uses under the Manchester Zoning Ordinance (ordinance) as a matter of right. Brookside cross-appealed, asking the Supreme Court to reinstate the ZBA's grant of the variance. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated the superior court order and remanded the case to the ZBA for further proceedings. View "Bartlett v. City of Manchester " on Justia Law

Petitioner Signal Aviation Services, Inc. appealed a superior court order which granted a motion to dismiss filed by the City of Lebanon. The City entered into a twenty year lease with HL Leasing for certain municipal airport lands. HL Leasing assigned its rights to Sierra Nevada Helicopters, which then assigned the rights to its affiliate, Signal. In the lease, the City agreed it would not allow any other provider of commercial aeronautical services to operate at the airport under terms more favorable than those set forth in the lease. In 2006, the City increased the assessed value of Signal's leased land. Signal claimed that the city assessed its land disproportionately as compared to other entities operating and leasing land at the airport. Signal was unsuccessful in seeking an abatement of its 2006 and 2007 taxes. The New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) dismissed Signal's appeals, holding that Signal failed to present any evidence of the market value of its property. Signal did not appeal the BTLA's decision nor did it contest the City's 2008 and 2009 assessments. Signal then filed suit in superior court to challenge all of the assessments. The trial court concluded that though Signal's petition was styled as a breach of contract, but that it was actually a request for tax abatement and outside the court's jurisdiction. The trial court then dismissed Signal's petition for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision insofar as it related to Signal's allegations of "disproportionate taxation." However, to the extent that Signal's breach of contract claim sought relief from "unequal treatment," specifically with respect to the amount of taxable land the City attributed to Signal and to other airport tenants with which the City contracts, Signal could pursue this claim without complying with the tax abatement statutory process. View "Signal Aviation Services, Inc. v. City of Lebanon" on Justia Law

Petitioner Laconia Patrolman Association appealed a Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) finding that respondent the Laconia Police Commission did not commit certain unfair labor practices. The matter stemmed from negotiations the parties engaged in with regard to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that expired in June, 2010. As a tentative agreement was presented to the Laconia City Council for approval, the city manager said she could no longer support the tentative agreement. The Association filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the Commission violated state law when it failed to ensure that the city council voted on cost items in the CBA within thirty days of presentation. It further alleged that the Council interfered with the negotiations of the CBA, and that the Commission's acquiescence to the Council's interference amounted to a failure to bargain in good faith. The PELRB ruled that the Council's failure to vote was not an unfair labor practice, and that claims that the Council improperly interfered with the Commission's bargaining power could not be brought against the commission: the record was insufficient to establish the Council improperly usurped the Commission's authority. Upon review of the PELRB ruling on appeal by the Association, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding no unfair labor practices. View "Appeal of Laconia Patrolman Association" on Justia Law

Respondent William Rines appealed a superior court order that enjoined him from excavating on his property until he obtained a local use variance from Petitioner Town of Carroll. Ultimately, the trial court concluded that respondent's excavation was exempt from the permitting requirements, the Town's zoning ordinance required the variance before respondent began excavating, and that state law did not preempt the local zoning ordinance. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's injunction, but remanded the case with respect to the calculation of attorney's fees. View "Town of Carroll v. Rines" on Justia Law

Respondent Nahla Abounaja appealed a district court order that awarded petitioner Myla Randall, $18,000 in damages because of the respondent's willful failure to provide heat to the petitioner's apartment for eighteen days. Petitioner rented an apartment from the respondent in Rochester. At some point before March 23, 2011, petitioner complained to the city's plumbing and health inspector that her apartment lacked heat. An inspector came to the premises and discovered that there was no heat in the petitioner's master bedroom because neither the radiator nor the electric heater worked. The inspector called respondent about this issue and met with her two days later. The inspector then sent a letter to the respondent about this problem, giving her fourteen days to remedy it. The respondent did not respond to the letter, nor did she return the inspector's subsequent telephone calls. Petitioner then filed suit on April 12, and the trial court issued a temporary order requiring respondent "to immediately restore and maintain all utility services" to the petitioner's apartment. Following the hearing on the petition, the trial court found that the respondent was aware that the heating units did not work and that she failed to have them repaired until April 18, and that her actions were willful. In her brief, respondent argued that her conduct was not "wil[l]ful" because she did not cause the petitioner's apartment to lack heat in the first instance. She argued that, at most, she merely "allow[ed]" the heating service to be interrupted; she did not "cause" the interruption itself. Her merely "negligent omission" did not constitute a willful act. Based upon the evidence at trial, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court reasonably found that the respondent's failure to have the units repaired was intentional, and, therefore, willful. However, because the trial court committed plain error when it awarded the petitioner $1,000 per day for at least some days that the respondent's violation of RSA 540-A:3, I, the Court vacated $17,000 of the damage award and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court was tasked with determining whether respondent willfully violated RSA 540-A:3, I after April 12, and, if so, the court was instructed to award petitioner $1,000 per day for each day that the respondent's violation continued. View "Randall v. Abounaja" on Justia Law

Petitioner New Hampshire Independent Pharmacy Association (NHIPA) appealed a superior court order that granted summary judgment to the New Hampshire Insurance Department. At issue were the requirements of RSA 415:6-aa and RSA 420-J:7-b, VIII which were enacted by the legislature in 2007. When these statutes first took effect, NHID interpreted them to require health benefit plans and health insurers providing prescription drug benefits to permit their insureds to purchase 90-day supplies of prescription drugs from retail pharmacies, provided that certain conditions were met. Under this construction, health insurers and health benefit plans could not limit coverage of 90-day supplies to those filled through mail-order pharmacies. In 2010, NHID changed its position and began reading these statutes as permitting health insurers and health benefit plans to limit coverage for 90-day prescription quantities to mail-order pharmacies. In response, NHIPA brought this action for declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus, asking the trial court to direct NHID to enforce RSA 415:6-aa and RSA 420-J:7-b, VIII in a manner requiring health insurers and health benefit plans to cover 90-day supplies of prescription drugs filled at retail pharmacies. NHID moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted its motion, ruling that RSA 415:6-aa and RSA 420-J:7-b, VIII did not impose such a requirement on health insurers and health benefit plans. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the language of RSA 415:6-aa and RSA 420-J:7-b, VIII to be plain and unambiguous, and affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department. View "New Hampshire Independent Pharmacy Assn. v. New Hampshire Ins. Dept." on Justia Law