Legal Opinion
O'Brien v. Continental Insurance
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided December 30, 1996No. 94-777PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrock, C.J.
The respondent, Continental Insurance Company (Continental), appeals from the Superior Court (Fitzgerald, J.) refusal to set aside a judgment pro confesso entered after it failed to enter an appearance by the return day. See Super. Ct. R. 131. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The facts set forth in the pleadings are as follows. The petitioners, Eugene R. and Deborah A. O’Brien, were the policy-holders of an *523insurance policy issued by Continental. The policy included, among other things, uninsured motorist coverage. During the policy period, petitioner Eugene O’Brien was riding…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Concord General Mutual Insurance v. MitchellSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
- Brady v. DuranSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977
- Koch v. RandallSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1992
- Brady v. MullenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
- Morriss v. Towle Hill Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Douglas v. DouglasSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1999
- Touma v. St. Mary's BankSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1998
- Bell v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2001
- Lakeview Homeowners Ass'n v. Moulton Construction, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1997
- Hanover Investment Corp. v. Town of HanoverSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1998
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.