Maxi Drug North, Inc. v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Health & Human Services
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
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
- Smith v. New Hampshire Board of Examiners of PsychologistsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
- Lamy v. New Hampshire Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2005
- Appeal of New Hampshire Department of TransportationSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1999
- Glick v. Town of OssipeeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1988
- Monier v. GallenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1980
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.