City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire v. Richard Schlesinger and William Weinstein

First Circuit

City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire v. Richard Schlesinger and William Weinstein

82 F.3d 547, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 10845, 1996 WL 227257

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMay 9, 1996

Docket94-1274

StatusPublished

This text of 82 F.3d 547 (City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire v. Richard Schlesinger and William Weinstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire v. Richard Schlesinger and William Weinstein, 82 F.3d 547, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 10845, 1996 WL 227257 (1st Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire issued its opinion on March 12, 1996, in City of Portsmouth v. Schlesinger, et al., 672 A.2d 712 (N.H.1996), responding to the question certified by this court on June 13, 1995. See City of Portsmouth v. Schlesinger, 57 F.3d 12, 18 (1st Cir.1995).

Having dealt with appellant’s other arguments in our earlier decision, the sole remaining issue in this appeal is whether the appellees’ so-called “illegality” defense was time barred. The district court held the defense timely and, ruling that it applied to appellant’s conduct, entered judgment for the appellees. On appeal, this court considered that the timeliness issue turned on whether the short statutes of limitation found in New Hampshire Rev.StatAnn. sections 677:2 and :4 apply in the circumstances of this case. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has now responded in the negative when that question was certified to it. The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the questions presented by this case — questions of an ordinance’s legality and ultimately the binding effect of a promissory note — were not questions of administrative action subject to RSA 677:2 and :4, but were affirmative defenses relating to the underlying legality of the appellant’s legislative action.

In light of the opinion of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, we hold that the district court’s judgment for the appellee must be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire issued its opinion on March 12, 1996, in City of Portsmouth v. Schlesinger, et al., 672 A.2d 712 (N.H.1996), responding to the question certified by this court on June 13, 1995. See City of Portsmouth v. Schlesinger, 57 F.3d 12, 18 (1st Cir.1995).

Having dealt with appellant’s other arguments in our earlier decision, the sole remaining issue in this appeal is whether the appellees’ so-called “illegality” defense was time barred. The district court held the defense timely and, ruling that it applied to appellant’s conduct, entered judgment for the appellees. On appeal, this court considered that the timeliness issue turned on whether the short statutes of limitation found in New Hampshire Rev.StatAnn. sections 677:2 and :4 apply in the circumstances of this case. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has now responded in the negative when that question was certified to it. The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the questions presented by this case — questions of an ordinance’s legality and ultimately the binding effect of a promissory note — were not questions of administrative action subject to RSA 677:2 and :4, but were affirmative defenses relating to the underlying legality of the appellant’s legislative action.

In light of the opinion of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, we hold that the district court’s judgment for the appellee must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 F.3d 547, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 10845, 1996 WL 227257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-portsmouth-new-hampshire-v-richard-schlesinger-and-william-ca1-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack