Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re New Hampshire Bar Ass'n

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 14, 2004No. 2003-482Published

1DissentDuggan, J.

Because I believe that we should decide constitutional issues only when necessary and that the issue of the constitutionality of RSA 311:7-g is not ripe for judicial review, I respectfully dissent. In my view, the better course is to refrain from determining the constitutionality of RSA 311:7-g until we know the results of the unification vote.

Because the judiciary is but one of the three equal branches of government, “[r]igorous adherence to the narrow scope of the judicial *122function is especially demanded in controversies that arouse appeals to the Constitution.” Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  3. Texas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  4. Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. In Re Unification of the New Hampshire BarSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1968

2 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