Legal Opinion · Dissent

Maxi Drug North, Inc. v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Health & Human Services

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided August 22, 2006No. 2005-765Published

1DissentDuggan, J.

Because I believe that the legislature did not intend to exempt all rules adopted under RSA 161:4, VI from all of the requirements of the APA when it readopted the APA in 1994, I respectfully dissent.

I agree with the majority that the action taken by DHHS constitutes a rule. I also agree with the majority that the rule does not simply “carry out what a statute authorizes on its face.” Smith v. N.H. Bd. of Psychologists, 138 N.H. 548, 553 (1994). I disagree, however, with the majority’s interpretation of RSA 541-A:21, III (Supp. 2005).

I begin by examining the language of the statute. Appeal of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Smith v. New Hampshire Board of Examiners of PsychologistsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
  2. Lamy v. New Hampshire Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2005
  3. Appeal of New Hampshire Department of TransportationSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1999
  4. Glick v. Town of OssipeeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1988
  5. Monier v. GallenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1980

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