Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)

Citation: Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
Parent Document: Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2014-05-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2681753/leigh-mae-friedline-a-v-eugene-roe/ ↗

Full Text

595 chars

The ultimate determination as to whether the district division had
jurisdiction in this case is a question of law, subject to de novo review.
Holloway Automotive Group v. Lucic, 163 N.H. 6, 12 (2011). In order to answer
                                         2
this question, we need to engage in statutory interpretation. See Bank of N.Y.
Mellon v. Cataldo, 161 N.H. 135, 137 (2010). We are the final arbiters of the
intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of the statute. Id. “When
the language of a statute is clear on its face, its meaning is not subject to
modification.” Id.

Other Sections in This Document (26)

Full Text