Legal Opinion

Hoban v. Bucklin

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided April 7, 1936PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, C. J.

I. The first bill is considered as though the attorney-general, representing the public interest, were not a party. He has not appeared in the litigation, and its course and conduct indicate that no adjudication of public rights is sought except as they affect the merits of the litigation as between the plaintiff and the defendant. The litigation is thus between private parties. No rights of the state or public are at stake. While in that sense it was correctly ruled that no public right might be litigated, yet the claim of the plaintiff, as one of the public, to the benefit of the public…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bodfish v. BodfishMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Sundell v. Town of New LondonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
  2. Blagbrough Family Realty Trust v. a & T Forest Products, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2007
  3. Robert Jesurum v. WBTSCC Limited Partnership & a.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2016
  4. Freed v. Cloverlea Citizens Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1967
  5. Anderson v. Town of East GreenwichSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1983

14 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