Opinion ID: 1945601
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appropriateness of the Writ of Certiorari

Text: Nelson and the board of parole argue that even if the Governor has standing, a writ of certiorari in superior court is not an appropriate means for challenging the alleged procedural irregularities in the board's actions. Traditionally, the courts of this State have not permitted procedural form to frustrate a colorable substantive claim. Simpson v. Simmons, 114 N.H. 690, 693, 327 A.2d 708, 710 (1974); Dupuis v. Smith Properties, 114 N.H. 625, 628, 325 A.2d 781, 782 (1974); Owen v. Weston, 63 N.H. 599, 600, 4 A. 801, 802 (1885); see K. Davis, Administrative Law Text § 24.01, at 459 (1972). One commentator has noted that [a]n imaginary system cunningly planned for the evil purpose of thwarting justice and maximizing fruitless litigation would copy the major features of the extraordinary remedies. K. Davis, Administrative Law Text § 24.01, at 458 (1972). As a device for reviewing administrative agency action, the permissible scope of certiorari includes whether the agency has acted illegally with respect of jurisdiction, authority or observance of the law. Landaff School Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 111 N.H. 317, 318, 282 A.2d 678, 679 (1971); Cloutier v. State Milk Control Board, 92 N.H. 199, 203, 28 A.2d 554, 557 (1942). The superior court has original jurisdiction, concurrent with that of this court, to entertain a petition for writ of certiorari. Quinn v. City of Concord, 108 N.H. 242, 245, 233 A.2d 106, 108 (1967); Nelson v. Morse, 91 N.H. 177, 178, 16 A.2d 61, 62 (1940). Since the State's basic contention is that the board of parole violated procedures required by law in paroling Martineau and Nelson, the petition for a writ of certiorari was a proper remedy.