Legal Opinion · Dissent

Spengler v. Porter

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided September 2, 1999No. 97-133Published

1DissentBrock, C.J.

The majority concludes that the plaintiffs failed to preserve their challenge to the trial court’s decision to rule on the merits of their petition after only a preliminary hearing. Because I believe that the plaintiffs did preserve this issue, and because I view the trial court’s action as an egregious denial of the plaintiffs’ rights to notice and a fair hearing, I respectfully dissent.

It is axiomatic that due process guarantees “the right to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Bragg v. Director, N.H. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 141 N.H. 677, 679, 690 A.2d 571, 573 (1997)…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. University of Texas v. CamenischSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Vogel v. VogelSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1993
  3. New Hampshire Right to Life Political Action Committee v. GardnerCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
  4. K-Mart Corporation v. Oriental Plaza, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
  5. Nationwide Amusements, Inc. v. George L. Nattin, MayorCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API