Legal Opinion

Bridgham v. Effingham

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided November 7, 1933PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, C. J.

The correct procedure upon a petition for leave to file a claim for injuries caused by a defective highway (P. L., c. 89, s. 10) was stated in Owen v. Derry, 71 N. H. 405, 406. The petition is not ordinarily to be denied unless “it conclusively appears from the admitted facts or the allegations of the petition that the plaintiff has and can have no valid claim against the defendants.” Later cases have followed this rule. Knight v. Haverhill, 77 N. H. 487; Prichard v. Boscawen, 78 N. H. 131; Rye v. Durham, 79 N. H. 51; Watkins v. Railroad, 80 N. H. 468.

In the present instance it is evident…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Prichard v. BoscawenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1916
  2. Watkins v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1922
  3. Knight v. HaverhillSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1915
  4. Owen v. DerrySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902
  5. Grace v. BelmontSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1916

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hartman v. Town of HooksettSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1984
  2. Bridgham v. EffinghamSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API