May 17, 2017
In Carr v. Town of New London, Hage Hodes PA represented Robert Carr and Raoul & Karen, LLC (Jay L. Hodes and Katherine E. Hedges on the brief, Jay L. Hodes orally) in their appeal of the Town of New London’s denial of their request for tax abatement under RSA 76:16 following a fire at their property. The Superior Court found for Robert Carr and Raoul & Karen, LLC, and the Town of New London appealed. The Town argued that after the Legislature passed RSA 76:21, which provided a method for requesting abatement following a fire, a taxpayer could not request abatement under the general provision for “good cause shown” in RSA 76:16 in the event of a fire. The NH Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling that RSA 76:16 remained an available avenue for a taxpayer to request relief in the event of a fire, in addition to RSA:21.
June 14, 2016
In Finn v. Ballentine Partners, LLC, Hage Hodes, PA (Jamie N. Hage on the brief) and Cohan Rasnick Myerson Plaut LLP (Robert D. Cohan on the brief and orally) represented Alice Finn in an appeal of the Superior Court’s denial of her motion to affirm an arbitration award and granting the defendant’s motion to set aside the award of the arbitrator. The primary issue before the NH Supreme Court was whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s standard of review preempted the standard of review in NH RSA 542:8, which has also been debated in other states. The NH Supreme Court ruled that the federal statute did not preempt RSA 542:8 and affirmed the Superior Court’s decision that res judciata applied and granting the defendants’ motion to vacate the arbitration award.
September 30, 2013
In Bilden Properties, LLC v. S. Gerald Birin, Hage Hodes, PA (Jamie N. Hage on the brief and orally) represented the respondents S. Gerald Birin and Gail Birin in a dispute over whether the petitioners were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the Birin’s mortgage. The Birin’s mortgage was incorrectly indexed in the registry of deeds, though the title search did reveal an “also known as” that referenced the correct name. Following oral argument, the NH Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners had record notice of the Birin’s mortgage and were not bona fide purchasers for value.
May 23, 2005
Commercial Law/Article 9 Uniform Commercial Code. Supreme court victory on behalf of attachment creditor – lead to judgment in excess of $400,000.
May 9, 2005
NH Supreme court victory on behalf of employee against former employer ruling that non-competition/non-solicitation clause was unenforceable and affirming award of damages and attorney’s fees of approximately $100,000 against employer.