Dobens v. Fagnant, 2025 N.H. 31 (2025)

Citation: Dobens v. Fagnant, 2025 N.H. 31 (2025)
Parent Document: Dobens v. Fagnant, 2025 N.H. 31 (2025)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2025-07-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10634920/dobens-v-fagnant/ ↗

Full Text

726 chars

[¶8] We first address the plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court erred in
ruling that the defendant was not required to provide the plaintiffs with 18
months’ notice under RSA 205-A:3 (2019). Resolving this issue requires that
we engage in statutory interpretation. We review the trial court’s statutory
interpretation de novo. Horton v. Clemens, 173 N.H. 480, 483 (2020). We first
examine the language of the statute, and, where possible, we ascribe the plain
and ordinary meaning to the words used. Id. When the language of the statute
is clear on its face, its meaning is not subject to modification. Id. We will
neither consider what the legislature might have said nor add words that it did
not see fit to include. Id.

Other Sections in This Document (24)

Full Text