Legal Opinion
Hashim v. Chimiklis
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided June 25, 1941No. 3246PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBurque, J.
The first question that arises is whether the plaintiff is a licensee or invitee. We are of the opinion his status was that of a licensee. A licensee is one who is privileged to enter or remain on and use the premises of another by virtue of the latter’s consent, whether by invitation or permission, and it is immaterial whether the consent which creates the license is an invitation — or a permission given upon request made by the licensee. The distinction between licensee and invitee is that a gratuitous licensee is any licensee other than a business visitor. 2 Restatement, Torts, ss. 330,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Tullgren v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Wisutskie v. MalouinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936
- Locke v. PayneSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1924
- Cyr v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936
- Leavitt v. BaconSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1938
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ouellette v. BlanchardSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1976
- Public Service Co. v. ElliottCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1941
- Canadian National Railway Company v. Agnes P. Conley, Administratrix of the Estate of Charles Everett ConleyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1955
- Cook v. 177 Granite Street, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1949
- Bedell v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1953
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.