-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
NH: Help stop local gun bans… Act Now!
- Thread starter design
- Start date
RSA 491:14 states that petitions for writs of mandamus can be heard in Superior Court. The other references in a search were heavily weighted to zoning, planning, and development areas of the RSAs. So to answer the question, yes but it may not be a form that helps us with violations of preemption.
BTW, IANAL.
P.S. House session cancelled tomorrow due to the weather so if you haven't emailed your representatives yet you get an extra day.
SpaceCritter
NES Member
Why not? It's a pretty egregious example of a local official/agency violating established law, which is textbook for writ of mandamus.
I agree that a writ of mandamus is justified. I'm looking at the context of where mandamus is mentioned throughout the statutes and guessing how a court might infer legislative intent based on that.
I am certainly not a lawyer, but I thought a writ of mandamus was designed to force a specific act which someone is obliged by law to do. I think they filed a writ against the County Clerk in KY who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. I’ve heard of writs against zoning boards who refused to enforce a particular zoning law. The writs compelled them to do what the law required them to do.
If the Selectmen of a city were to pass a law, say banning firearms in parks, would a writ be a vehicle to compel them to not do that? As I said I’m no lawyer, but that’s not the way I’ve read of writs being utilized.
Paging StrangeNH...
SpaceCritter
NES Member
Last edited:
There are specific penalties for many things, just not one for violating a civil right that is secured under the bill of rights in both the NH and Federal Constitutions.
I have yet to see any arguments against passage of this bill, that when examined have any merit. Lot's of hyperbole, but not much fact...
I have yet to see any arguments against passage of this bill, that when examined have any merit. Lot's of hyperbole, but not much fact...
The committee voted to send it for study which is a way to kill it without admitting that's their intent. Next up is the full House (tomorrow?) so email your representatives to pass the amended bill.
In a 2nd year, "study" means death as the legislative session is over (ends in June) before the "study" begins. A Nay vote was a correct vote.
[Art.] 15. [Compensation of the Legislature.] The presiding officers of both houses of the legislature, shall severally receive out of the state treasury as compensation in full for their services for the term elected the sum of $250, and all other members thereof, seasonably attending and not departing without license, the sum of $200 and each member shall receive mileage for actual daily attendance on legislative days, but not after the legislature shall have been in session for 45 legislative days or after the first day of July following the annual assembly of the legislature, whichever occurs first; provided, however, that, when a special session shall be called by the governor or by a 2/3 vote of the then qualified members of each branch of the general court, such officers and members shall receive for attendance an additional compensation of $3 per day for a period not exceeding 15 days and the usual mileage. Nothing herein shall prevent the payment of additional mileage to members attending committee meetings or on other legislative business on nonlegislative days.
[Art.] 15. [Compensation of the Legislature.] The presiding officers of both houses of the legislature, shall severally receive out of the state treasury as compensation in full for their services for the term elected the sum of $250, and all other members thereof, seasonably attending and not departing without license, the sum of $200 and each member shall receive mileage for actual daily attendance on legislative days, but not after the legislature shall have been in session for 45 legislative days or after the first day of July following the annual assembly of the legislature, whichever occurs first; provided, however, that, when a special session shall be called by the governor or by a 2/3 vote of the then qualified members of each branch of the general court, such officers and members shall receive for attendance an additional compensation of $3 per day for a period not exceeding 15 days and the usual mileage. Nothing herein shall prevent the payment of additional mileage to members attending committee meetings or on other legislative business on nonlegislative days.
strangenh
NES Member
Study or not, it's done for now. I'm hoping for a version next session that at least allows the aggrieved party to seek attorney's fees from an entity found in violation. Under the existing law, that would take extraordinary circumstances. That would put it on par with modern civil rights statutes.
SMASHING MACHINE
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2012
- Messages
- 252
- Likes
- 76
Thanks for keeping us up to date, gents.
