Legal Opinion

Spicer v. Claremont

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided March 29, 1963No. 5113PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKenison, C. J.

Although three questions have been transferred without ruling to this court, counsel have treated the second question as the “primary and main issue in this case.” In other words the question is whether, under the zoning ordinance of the city of Claremont, the term “motel” is synonymous with the term “hotel” and is subject to the same limitations as imposed on hotels as defined in article 1, section 1 of ordinance 27 as amended. This ordinance defines a hotel as “A building in which twenty rooms or more are available for hire and incidental hotel services are provided.” We conclude that the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Parrish v. NewburyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1955
  2. Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1956
  3. Hotel Syracuse, Inc. v. Motel Syracuse, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
  4. Maturi v. BalintNew York Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Hotel Syracuse, Inc. v. Motel Syracuse, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1955

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Trottier v. City of LebanonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977
  2. Piecuch v. City of ManchesterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1974
  3. Merriam v. Town of SalemSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972
  4. Saidla v. Stratham Planning BoardSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API