Legal Opinion

Utica Mutual Insurance v. Plante

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 7, 1965No. 5380PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLampron, J.

The law is well settled in New Hampshire that there can be no recovery of counsel fees from the adverse party to a cause in the absence of statutory authorization, agreement between the parties, or some established exception. Jacques v. Company, 78 N. H. 248, 250. This is in accord with the law of most jurisdictions. Shapiro v. Magaziner, 418 Pa. 278; Child v. Lincoln Enterprises, Inc., 51 I11. App. 2d 76; 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Costs, s. 73, pp. 59, 60.

RSA 525:13 provides that a nominal attorney fee shall be allowed in bills of costs for an appearance by a defendant. “There is no statute which in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Drummond v. DrummondSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  2. Shapiro v. MagazinerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Keenan v. FearonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1988
  2. Pugliese v. Town of Northwood Planning BoardSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
  3. Wilko of Nashua, Inc. v. Tap Realty, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977
  4. New Hampshire Ball Bearings v. Aetna CasualtyDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1994
  5. Morse v. FordSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978

5 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