Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />L <br />Zoning Bulletin November 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 22 <br />tions could exceed $25,000." Thus, the court found that the legislature's <br />intent clearly was remedial. However, the court also had to consider <br />whether the amendment actually affected Furlong's substantive rights. <br />Here, the court found that the amendment to RSA 676:17, I, did not <br />change Furlong's substantive rights. Furlong was always subject to the <br />same penalties for the violations he committed, said the court. The amend- <br />ment "merely allow[ed] the parties' respective rights to be adjudicated in <br />an additional forum." Prior to the amendment, the Town could have brought <br />the exact same claim, and been awarded the exact same judgment, in the <br />superior court. The only consequence of the amendment, found the court, <br />was that the Town was relieved of the need to transfer to superior court if it <br />wanted to collect more than $25,000. This expansion of the jurisdiction of <br />the district court was remedial, concluded the court. Accordingly, the court <br />held that the amendment could be applied to the instant case. Because the <br />amended statute contained explicit language providing that "[e]ach day <br />that a violation continues shall constitute a separate violation," the district <br />court had jurisdiction "even though the aggregate amount of damages <br />awarded for individual violations exceed[ed] the jurisdictional limit in <br />RSA 502-A:14, II." Accordingly, the appellate court held that the trial <br />court did not exceed its authority when it imposed the penalty of $344,025 <br />on the defendant. <br />See also: Town ofAmherst v. Gilroy, 157 N.H. 275, 950A.2d 193 (2008). <br />See also: Autofair 1477, L.P. v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., <br />166 N.H. 599, 103 A.3d 1164 (2014). <br />See also: Workplace Systems, Inc. v. CIGNA Property & Cas. Ins. Co., <br />143 N.H. 322, 723 A.2d 583 (1999). <br />Governmental Immunity— <br />Neighboring property owner <br />appeals zoning action, seeks <br />reimbursement costs for appeal <br />from city <br />City claims governmental immunity, but neighbor <br />disputes immunity arguing zoning action is <br />ministerial not discretionary <br />Citation: Folsom v. Zoning Bd. ofAppeals of City of Milford, 160 Conn. <br />App. 1, 2015 WL 5331749 (2015) <br />CONNECTICUT (09/22/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />the grant of a certificate of zoning compliance was a discretionary act, and <br />0 2015 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />