State v. Sweeney
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.
Ordinances, like statutes, should be construed so as to effectuate their evident purpose. Young v. Bridges, 86 N. H. 135, 140, and cases cited. The evident purpose of the ordinance quoted above, which is applicable to the business district of the city, is primarily to provide convenient parking facilities for those who wish to make short visits to stores and business offices. Its purpose is to promote the convenience of persons who wish to make short calls at the cost of some inconvenience to those who wish to remain in the business section for periods of time in excess of an hour. There may…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sauriolle v. O'GormanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932
- Young v. BridgesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933
3Cited by7 opinions
- Appeal of RichardsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1991
- White v. LeeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1983
- State v. TaylorSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1989
- Doggett v. Town of North Hampton Zoning Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
- Quality Carpets, Inc. v. CarterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.