MERRIMACK VALLEY WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. & a. v. GLEN NEAR

Annotate this Case
Case No. 2004-0447, Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. & a. v. Glen Near

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

 

In Case No. 2004-0447, Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. & a. v. Glen Near, the court on June 22, 2005, issued the following order:

On the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, the court modifies the slip opinion issued May 9, 2005, as follows:

1. On page 9 of the slip opinion, the last full paragraph, which begins with the words "The trial court's order" and ends with the words "the trial court's ruling," is deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following paragraph:

The trial court's order recognizing its error and reversing itself on the bond issue is also instructive in this regard. This order states that the prior order not requiring a bond "does not specifically address respondent's request for a bond and does not give any reasons for waiving the bond requirement." This characterization of its own order by the trial court bolsters our conclusion that the trial court failed to consider the bond issue. We, therefore, find that since the trial court never considered the bond issue, the defendant did not acquiesce to its ruling not requiring a bond to be posted, and therefore was correct to seek damages after the evidentiary hearing.

2. On page 10 of the slip opinion, the fifth sentence of the last full paragraph, which begins with the words "The trial court noted" and ends with the words "waiving the bond requirement," is deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following sentence:

The trial court noted, as cited above, that the prior order not requiring a bond "does not specifically address respondent's request for a bond and does not give any reasons for waiving the bond requirement."

In all other respects, the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.

Opinion modified; reconsideration denied.

Broderick, C.J., and Dalianis, Duggan and Galway, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox
Clerk

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.