Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sirrell v. State

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided May 3, 2001No. 2001-063Published

1Dissent

BROCK, C.J., and BRODERICK, J.,

dissenting. Because the trial court’s findings in this case are supported by the evidence and not erroneous as a matter of law, we would affirm its analytically sound and thoughtful ruling that the statewide property tax as currently administered violates Part II, Article 5 and Part II, Article 6 of the State Constitution and remand the issue of remedy. We therefore respectfully dissent.

I. Burden of Proof

The majority today adopts a new standard, not even advocated by the State in the trial court, requiring proof of a widespread scheme of intentional…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Lujan v. National Wildlife FederationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Austin v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of EducationMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1993
  4. Bettigole v. Assessors of SpringfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1961
  5. Claremont School District v. GovernorSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1997

33 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