Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Dickstein

4 Citing cases

  1. State ex rel Nilsen v. Whited

    396 P.2d 758 (Or. 1964)   Cited 4 times

    Such an allocation of risk is peculiarly within the competence of the legislature. The allocation through ORS 652.335 is reasonable as an exercise of the police power or an implementation of Article I, Sec. 39. An incidental regulation in aid of major regulation of a proper subject is valid where it is of reasonable service to the accomplishment of the objects sought to be attained: State v. Dickstein, 1938, 89 N.H. 546, 3 A.2d 115; Perry v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission, supra, note 2. The grounds adopted below for a finding of unconstitutionality do not suffice here.

  2. Velishka v. Nashua

    99 N.H. 161 (N.H. 1954)   Cited 56 times
    In Velishka v. Nashua, 99 N.H. 161, 165, 106 A.2d 571, 573 (1954), the weight to be given legislative findings and declarations is stated as follows: "These legislative findings and declarations have no magical quality to make valid that which is invalid but they are entitled to weight in construing the statute and in determining whether the statute promotes a public purpose under the Constitution."

    State v. Roberts, 74 N.H. 476, 478. This general rule has been consistently applied in this state in considering the constitutionality of various types of statutes enacted under the police power. Chung Mee v. Healy, 86 N.H. 483, 484; State v. Dickstein, 89 N.H. 546; Chronicle c. Pub. Co. v. Attorney General, 94 N.H. 148. The view that redevelopment projects constitute a valid public purpose for which public funds may be appropriated and the power of eminent domain granted is approved by the overwhelming weight of authority.

  3. Maritime Packers v. Carpenter

    99 N.H. 73 (N.H. 1954)   Cited 5 times

    The chief issue raised by the plaintiffs is whether the statute "may be found to be of reasonable service towards accomplishing the object sought to be attained." State v. Dickstein, 89 N.H. 546, 547; Richardson v. Beattie, 98 N.H. 71, 77. They contend that the statute is invalid as to them because there is no reasonable connection between the imposition of minimum length requirements on lobster meat from without the state as packaged by them and the enforcement of those requirements as to lobsters from local waters.

  4. Richardson v. Beattie

    98 N.H. 71 (N.H. 1953)   Cited 16 times

    On the other hand, if dangerous contamination or a threat thereof exists, there must be a reasonable connection between the regulation and the ends mentioned in the statute, namely protection against the contamination. State v. Ramseyer, 73 N.H. 31, 36; State v. Dickstein, 89 N.H. 546. The prohibition of all human activity in Back Pond as a means of preventing contamination, at best only remotely connected with the activity prohibited, appears to us to be "clearly unreasonable." Carter v. Craig, 77 N.H. 200, 206. It cannot be doubted on the evidence that the private rights of the owners of shore properties would be substantially restricted by the regulation.