Legal Opinion

Eastman v. McCarten

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 5, 1899PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBlodgett, C. J.

The question arising upon the agreed case is the sufficiency of the notice for the biennial meeting, November, 1898, in the town of Lancaster, and the ground of complaint is that the selectmen failed to post their warrant agreeably to the statutory requirement in respect of time. There is now, however, no occasion to consider the effect of this failure of duty, because by an act approved January 31, 1899, and which went into effect upon its passage, the legislature, in the exercise of its curative power to correct irregularities, has provided “ That the selectmen’s warrant for, and the votes…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Conner v. . the Mayor, C. of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
  2. The People v. . DevlinNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
  3. Prince v. SkillinSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1880
  4. Walter v. BaconMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
  5. Town of Fox v. Town of KendallIllinois Supreme Court · 1880

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Matz v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. United Thacker Coal Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1931
  3. Calawa v. Town of LitchfieldSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972
  4. Burrage v. New Hampshire Police Standards & Training CouncilSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1986
  5. Drown v. Town of HudsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972

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