Stephen Morse Wheeler

This case was an eminent domain proceeding in which the State took 5.6 acres of the plaintiffs' land in fee and landlocked another 17.1 acres for the construction of Interstate 93, with the jury awarding $7,000 in damages after trial. The State appealed, contending that evidence of the quantities of gravel and loam on the taken and landlocked parcels, along with prior gross income from gravel operations, was improperly admitted and could lead to an excessive or speculative verdict. The court ruled that the evidence was competent to establish the property's most advantageous use and fair market value at the time of taking, as long as the jury was instructed not to compute damages by simply multiplying unit quantities by market prices, and found no error in the admission of the evidence or the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a landowner appealing an eminent domain damages award for land taken for a schoolhouse after the 60-day statutory deadline had passed due to mistake and misfortune. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appeal must be filed within sixty days as required by RSA 199:18, which incorporates the strict time limit from highway cases under RSA 234:24 stating "and not thereafter." The core reasoning was that statutes of limitation are absolute, with no provision for extensions, and the court lacks inherent power to extend them contrary to clear legislative intent. Since amending the appeal would not change the outcome, no remand was needed.

propertyprocedure

In Allen v. Hampton, several property owners sued the town of Hampton for negligence in failing to maintain its municipal drainage system, resulting in water damage to their real estate and belongings. The town moved to dismiss, arguing sovereign immunity and that no cause of action was stated. The court denied the motions, holding that a municipality can be liable for negligence in drainage maintenance whether the system is a governmental or proprietary function, particularly when negligent acts invade adjoining property owners' rights, as established in precedents regarding highways and municipal works. The case was remanded for further proceedings after the exceptions were overruled.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case was a challenge by neighboring property owners to the Manchester zoning board of adjustment's grant of a variance permitting conversion of a large old dwelling and garage at 754 Chestnut Street into a dwelling and funeral home in a single-residence zoning district. The trial court dismissed the appeal after a hearing, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the board's decision was not unreasonable or unlawful under RSA 31:78. The majority reasoned that the record supported findings of unnecessary hardship from the property's size and age limiting its marketability for permitted uses, that the neighborhood's character had been altered by many prior variances allowing multi-family and business uses, and that the proposed use would not adversely affect the area or violate the ordinance's spirit, with conditions for screening and signs. A dissent argued that no special conditions existed to justify a business use variance in a prevailing residential zone.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a challenge to the timeliness of an appeal from a decision by the Commissioner of Employment Security regarding an employer's liability under RSA 282. The Superior Court initially denied the state's motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely, but the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the appeal was not filed within the required ten days after the mailing of the decision. The court reasoned that even though the tenth day fell on a Sunday, extending the deadline to Monday March 1, the plaintiff mailed the appeal notice on that Monday and it was received on Tuesday March 2, which was after the deadline under RSA 282:6-F(4). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and judgment was entered for the defendant.

procedurelabor & employment

This case involved a plaintiff who was injured after falling on a defective public sidewalk adjacent to the defendant's business premises in Manchester, New Hampshire. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had prior notice of the defect but failed to repair it, though no affirmative act by the defendant caused the issue. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the abutting property owner owed no duty to maintain or repair the public sidewalk. The reasoning relied on the common-law rule that such owners have no obligation to keep public sidewalks safe absent causing the defect, with the statutory duty to repair instead resting on municipal highway agents under RSA 252:3 and RSA 247:10. The case was remanded accordingly.

torts & liabilityproperty