While a few state courts in early cases held that federal pleadings are not to be given effect in state proceedings, the more recent trend is to give them effect. See Swarey v. Stephenson , 222 Md.App. 65, 112 A.3d 534, 549 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) ("Over the last half-century, other state courts presented with this issue have routinely chosen to give full effect to pleadings filed in federal court prior to a remand to state court."); State v. Hess Corp. , 159 N.H. 256, 982 A.2d 388, 393 (2009) ("Although state courts historically have refused to give such pleadings effect, see Tracy Loan & Trust Co. [v. Mut. Life Ins. ], 79 Utah 33, 7 P.2d [279] at 282 (1932)], ‘[m]ore recently, state courts have given effect to pleadings filed in federal court prior to remand to state court.’ "); Crawford v. Morris Transp., Inc. , 990 So.2d 162, 173 n.27 (Miss. 2008) ("The modern trend is to give effect to pleadings filed in federal court upon remand."); State ex rel. Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. City of Albuquerque , 119 N.M. 169, 889 P.2d 204, 207 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993) ("It is generally recognized that pleadings filed in federal court, while the federal court has jurisdiction, become part of the state court record on remand."). [¶41] The courts that have adopted the majority rule cite solid policy considerations for their decision to give effect to federal pleadings on remand.
Some state courts "have given effect to pleadings filed in federal court prior to a remand to state court." See Banks v. Allstate Indem. Co. , 143 Ohio App.3d 97, 757 N.E.2d 776, 778 (2001) (holding "a party need not refile documents in the court of common pleas after a case is remanded from federal court so long as that party makes the trial court aware of the filing's existence and, if challenged, shows proof of service on the other party at the time the document was filed in federal court"); see also New Hampshire v. Hess Corp. , 159 N.H. 256, 982 A.2d 388, 393-95 (2009) (giving effect to the first amended complaint filed in federal court before remand to state court and holding "the trial court did not err when it concluded that the first amended complaint remained viable after remand").Pellebon , ¶ 17.
Certainly, service under the federal rules, of the very same complaint that was filed in state court prior to removal, satisfies the requirements of due process. See generally State v. Hess Corp., 159 N.H. 256, 982 A.2d 388, 392–96 (2009); Hansen, supra, 399 A.2d at 322–23. Here, as in Hess Corp. and Hansen, there is nothing to suggest that Appellee Stephenson would be deprived of his right to notice and an opportunity to be heard if service under the federal rules is deemed sufficient to bring him before the state court.
Although plaintiff seeks to sidestep such motion practice, the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of delay, effort, and expense resulting from motion practice militate against requiring the filing of a more appropriate motion. Such interests, in addition to the comity between federal and state courts, constitute strong arguments for permitting a party's reliance, in an action remanded to state court, on pleadings filed by right or on consent in the federal court later found to be without subject matter jurisdiction. (See eg State v Hess Corp., 159 NH 256, 260, 262-263 [2009] [judicial economy and efficiency, avoidance of delay, effort, and expense resulting from requiring party to duplicate pleadings, preference for deciding cases on merits, and acknowledgement of comity between federal and state courts warrant giving pleadings filed in federal court effect on remand]; JurisDictionUSA, Inc. v Loislaw.com, Inc., 357 Ark 403 [2004] [under retroactively applied amended rule of civil procedure, defendant not required to re-file in state court an answer filed in federal court during removal, thereby fairly avoiding default judgment]). Moreover, a refusal to entertain plaintiff's motion could result in a default, which is not favored, especially where plaintiff has manifested nothing short of a rabid desire to pursue this action.
To the extent the defendant's brief raises issues beyond the scope of these three interlocutory questions, we decline to address them. See State v. Hess Corp., 159 N.H. 256, 260 (2009). [¶6] When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we accept the trial court's factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous, and we review its legal conclusions de novo.
We accept the statement of the case and facts as presented in the interlocutory appeal statement and rely upon the record for additional facts as necessary. See State v. Hess Corp., 159 N.H. 256, 258 (2009). The plaintiffs seek compensation for damages arising out of a July 29, 2017 automobile accident.
We accept the statement of the case and facts as presented in the interlocutory appeal statement and the trial court order, and rely upon the record for additional facts as necessary. See State v. Hess Corp., 159 N.H. 256, 258, 982 A.2d 388 (2009). The plaintiffs own and operate twenty-three hotels.
We accept the statement of the case and facts as presented in the interlocutory appeal statement and rely upon the record for additional facts as necessary. See State v. Hess Corp., 159 N.H. 256, 258, 982 A.2d 388 (2009). Home is a New Hampshire-domiciled insurance company, which wrote insurance and reinsurance in almost all fifty states as well as Canada, Bermuda, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom.
We accept the statement of the case and facts as presented in the interlocutory appeal statement and rely upon the record for additional facts as necessary. See State v. Hess Corp., 159 N.H. 256, 258 (2009). Before it was amended in 2018, RSA 632-A:2, I(n)(1) provided, in pertinent part:
We accept the statement of the case and facts as presented in the interlocutory appeal statement and rely upon the record for additional facts as necessary. See State v. Hess Corp., 159 N.H. 256, 258, 982 A.2d 388 (2009). In July 2008, the Lenos' twin children, a boy and a girl, were born.