THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Extra-Jurisdictional Cases City of New Albany v. Charles Barkley, 510 So.2d 805 (Miss. 1987).....................................................................................................22 County of Nueces v. Floyd, 609 S.W.2d 271 (Tex.Civ.App. -Corpus Christi 1980)...........................................................21 Davis v. City of Mebane, 512 S.E.2d 450 (N.C.App. 1999).............................................................................................22 Moore v. Assoc. Material and Supply Co., 948 P.2d 652 (1999) ....................................................................................................20, 21, 23 Nemet v. Boston Water and Sewer Com’n, 775 N.E.2d 750 (Mass.App.Ct. 2002) .....................................................................................21 San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Super. Ct., 920 P.2d 669 (Cal. 1996).........................................................................................................14 Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Gragg, 43 S.W.3d 609 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001) ...................................................................................21 Treatises Restatement (Second) of Torts § 826 (1979)........................................................................... 13-14 v
QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether the trial court erred in interpreting Tarbell Adm’r, Inc. v. City of Concord, 157 N.H. 678 (2008) as limiting the City’s liability to its failure to remove debris? Preserved: Appx. to Brief, (Record “R”) p. 115, 116, 118-19. II. Whether the trial court erred in interpreting Tarbell Adm’r, Inc., as limiting the Trust’s trespass and nuisance claims to facts relating to debris as opposed to water? Preserved: R., pp. 115, 116, 118-19. III. Whether the trial court erred in interpreting Tarbell Adm’r, Inc., as immunizing all of the City’s acts and omissions, other than its failure to remove debris? Preserved: R., pp. 115, 116, 118-19. IV. Whether the trial court erred in granting the City’s motion for summary judgment on the Trust’s trespass and nuisance claims, based on the trial court’s conclusion that the only evidence of the City’s intent related to the City’s control of water, an act the trial court interpreted immunized by Tarbell Adm’r, Inc.? Preserved: R., pp. 115, 116. V. Whether the trial court erred when it concluded that, as a matter of law, the evidence of substantial and unreasonable interference with the Trust’s use and enjoyment of its property was insufficient to defend the City’s motion for summary judgment? Preserved: R., pp. 117, 119. VI. Whether the trial court applied the proper standard of review and properly analyzed the City’s motion for summary judgment? Preserved: R., pp. 111-17. VII. Whether the trial court applied the correct law to the Trust’s trespass and nuisance claims? Preserved: R., pp. 114-17, 119-20. VIII. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the Trust was required to establish that the legal cause and cause in fact of the damage to the plaintiff’s property was the City’s negligent failure to clean out the debris from the brook and culvert and not just the rainfall itself, and that doing so required an expert? Preserved: R., pp. 112-14. IX. Whether the Trust sufficiently preserved its constitutional claims? Preserved: R., pp. 121. 1
Page 1 and 2: THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME
Page 3 and 4: IV. THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDER GRANT
Page 5: Lemay v. Burnett, 139 N.H. 633 (197
Page 9 and 10: STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case app
Page 11 and 12: The City controls and operates a da
Page 13 and 14: SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Tarbell Adm’r
Page 15 and 16: is why. Respectfully, the trial cou
Page 17 and 18: knows that an injury is substantial
Page 19 and 20: predecessor in title considered rea
Page 21 and 22: III. PROVING THE CITY NEGLIGENTLY M
Page 23 and 24: Consequently, this Court essentiall
Page 25 and 26: properly functioning brakes on a vi
Page 27 and 28: Id. at 660. The Moore court then an
Page 29 and 30: D. THIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE EXPER
Page 31 and 32: Despite these rules, the trial cour
Page 33 and 34: Respectfully submitted, Tarbell Adm

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?