Guy v. Town of Temple

16 Citing cases

  1. In re Leborgne

    173 N.H. 488 (N.H. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    The interpretation of the CAB's decision presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649, 956 A.2d 272 (2008). Based upon our review of the CAB's decision, we agree with the petitioner that the CAB erroneously considered noncompliance with RSA 281-A:23, V(c) in its determination of whether the treatment was reasonable, necessary, and related to her workplace injury.

  2. In re M.P.

    305 A.3d 916 (N.H. 2023)

    We do not construe the AAU’s decision as rejecting the petitioner’s prior diagnoses, but, rather, as part of its ultimate determination, previously detailed, not to credit the prior diagnoses as proof that the petitioner has a qualifying disability. See Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649, 956 A.2d 272 (2008) ("[T]he interpretation of a tribunal’s order presents a question of law, which we review de novo."). The petitioner next argues that the AAU’s decision does not rest on objective and credible evidence.

  3. In re Town of Amherst

    175 N.H. 575 (N.H. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    The interpretation of a tribunal's order presents a question of law, which we review de novo. Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649, 956 A.2d 272 (2008). The HAB's review of a planning board's decision is similarly governed by statute.

  4. In re N.H. Div. of State Police

    175 N.H. 1 (N.H. 2022)

    The interpretation of the PAB's order presents a question of law for us to decide. See State v. Surrell, 171 N.H. 82, 88, 189 A.3d 883 (2018) ; Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649, 956 A.2d 272 (2008). The PAB expressly found that the employee violated policies warranting a twenty-day suspension without pay based on "failing to communicate [his timekeeping] problem to his superiors in a timely manner, poor record keeping[,] and travelling ... on state time on the way to a detail wearing the wrong uniform."

  5. In re N.H. Dep't of Transp.

    174 N.H. 610 (N.H. 2021)

    We do not share DOT's interpretation of the PELRB's order. See Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649, 956 A.2d 272 (2008) ("[T]he interpretation of a tribunal's order presents a question of law, which we review de novo."). The PELRB identified DOT's interests in imposing a CDL medical card requirement on current employees, examined DOT's evidence that the requirement served those interests, and balanced those interests against the requirement's impact on employees.

  6. In re Appeal of Rye Sch. Dist.

    173 N.H. 753 (N.H. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    We interpret this decision as accepting the hearing officer's factual findings but disagreeing with the hearing officer's interpretation of those facts and his ultimate conclusions based thereon. See Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649, 956 A.2d 272 (2008) ("[T]he interpretation of a tribunal's order presents a question of law, which we review de novo."); cf. Appeal of Farmington Sch. Dist., 168 N.H. at 731, 138 A.3d 496 (explaining that the State Board's conclusion, contrary to that reached by the local board, as to whether employee had been insubordinate, "was not a de novo factual determination," but "[r]ather, the state board accepted the local board's account of what [employee] did[,] ... but found clearly erroneous the local board's conclusion that [employee's] actions were inconsistent with district policy"). The District argues that the State Board's conclusions "directly contradict[ ]" a number of specific findings of fact made by the hearing officer.

  7. Hodges v. Johnson

    173 N.H. 595 (N.H. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    In fact, the trial court thoughtfully examined that issue. See Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649, 956 A.2d 272 (2008) ("[T]he interpretation of a tribunal's order presents a question of law, which we review de novo."). The Former Co-Trustees next assert that the trial court erred by failing to find that they are entitled to reimbursement under RSA 564-B:7-709 for the post-trial fees and costs they personally incurred to defend the decantings.

  8. In re Appeal of Doody

    172 N.H. 802 (N.H. 2020)   Cited 8 times

    We do not share the claimant's interpretation of the CAB's decision. Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649, 956 A.2d 272 (2008) ("[T]he interpretation of a tribunal's order presents a question of law, which we review de novo."). Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, we find no error in the CAB's finding that the claimant's injury was not the result of a risk directly related to her employment.

  9. In re Appeal of Mullen

    169 N.H. 392 (N.H. 2016)   Cited 5 times

    "[J]udicial review is not warranted for complaints regarding adverse rulings without developed legal argument, and neither passing reference to constitutional claims nor off-hand invocations of constitutional rights without support by legal argument or authority warrants extended consideration." Guy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 658, 956 A.2d 272 (2008) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, we will conduct only a procedural due process analysis.

  10. Appeal of Northridge Environmental, LLC

    168 N.H. 657 (N.H. 2016)   Cited 4 times
    Concluding that the legislature's use of the term "includes" in the statute defining the term "health care providers" demonstrates that the statutorily-enumerated list of such providers is not exhaustive

    Thus, the respondents assert that the "denial of [their] Motion for Rehearing/Reconsideration on that premise was erroneous as a matter of law and should be overturned." To the extent that addressing this issue requires us to interpret the CAB decision, such interpretation presents a question of law. SeeGuy v. Town of Temple, 157 N.H. 642, 649, 956 A.2d 272 (2008) ("[T]he interpretation of a tribunal's order presents a question of law, which we review de novo ."). We agree with the respondents that we did not previously address whether the services provided by the petitioner's wife were reimbursable.