Sirrell v. State
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
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
- Lujan v. National Wildlife FederationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Austin v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of EducationMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1993
- Bettigole v. Assessors of SpringfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1961
- Claremont School District v. GovernorSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1997
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.