Wolfeboro Neck Property Owners Ass'n v. Town of Wolfeboro

5 Citing cases

  1. Crowley v. Town of Loudon

    162 N.H. 768 (N.H. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    We next address the Residents' assertion that the trial court erred when it decided that there was no “occasion” to lay out Green View Drive as a public road. Upon petition, a town will lay out roads when there is an “occasion” to do so. Wolfeboro Neck Prop. Owners Assoc. v. Town of Wolfeboro, 146 N.H. 449, 451, 773 A.2d 633 (2001). “Occasion” for the lay out of public roads exists if the public interest requires the town's acceptance of the roads.

  2. Green Crow v. New Ipswich

    157 N.H. 344 (N.H. 2008)   Cited 5 times

    The plaintiff appealed to the superior court. See RSA 231:34 (1993); Wolfeboro Neck Prop. Owners Assoc. v. Town of Wolfeboro, 146 N.H. 449, 452, 773 A.2d 633 (2001). There, the plaintiff contended that the occasion requirement under RSA 231:8 did not apply to its petition, and, that even if it did, the defendant was not permitted to consider anticipated impacts associated with potential development that could result from the upgraded and reclassified highway.

  3. Rodgers Dev. Co. a. v. Town of Tilton

    147 N.H. 57 (N.H. 2001)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that "although [the developer] will be particularly benefitted by the dedication of the roads to public use, the taking of the landowners' property for that use is constitutional"

    In cases in which subtle distinctions were not at issue, we have used different terms to describe our consideration of the same basic question —referring variously to the "need," "necessity," "exigency," "convenience," and "interest" of the public, and balancing those public considerations in various ways against the rights of the affected landowners and the burden of the layout on the town. Compare Dudley, 5 N.H. at 560-61, with Wolfeboro Neck Prop. Owners Assoc. v. Town of Wolfeboro, 146 N.H. 449, 452, (2001). The case before us is the first in many years involving landowners' objection to a proposed layout.

  4. Gen. Insulation Co. v. Eckman Constr

    159 N.H. 601 (N.H. 2010)   Cited 46 times
    Noting that "unjust enrichment generally does not form an independent basis for a cause of action"

    Id. "A performance bond guarantees to the owner that a prime contractor will perform according to the contract referenced in the bond." Id.; see Wolfeboro Neck Prop. Owners Assoc. v. Town of Wolfeboro, 146 N.H. 449, 453 (2001). "A payment bond assures the owner that the prime contractor will pay its subcontractors and suppliers, who might otherwise file liens against the owner's property."

  5. Bourne v. Town of Madison

    03-E-0061 (N.H. 8-10-2007) (N.H. Aug. 10, 2007)

    V.S.H. Realty. Inc. v. City of Manchester, 123 N.H. 505, 508 (1983). The court must make "an independent determination of the occasion, or appropriateness, of laying out a road as requested."Wolfeboro Neck Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Town of Wolfeboro. 146 N.H. 449, 452 (2001) (quotations and citations omitted). "Determining whether occasion exists is a two-step process."