Court Opinion

ID: 2963070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:06:04.87625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:38.040160
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 94-1274

                          CITY OF PORTSMOUTH NEW HAMPSHIRE,

                               Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                                          v.

                      RICHARD SCHLESINGER AND WILLIAM WEINSTEIN,

                               Defendants - Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                             and Young,* District Judge.
                                         ______________

                                _____________________

               Steven E.  Grill, with  whom Alexander  J. Walker,  Jr., and
               ________________             __________________________
          Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A. were on brief for appellants.
          _______________________________
               Christopher  Cole, with  whom  Peter S.  Cowan and  Sheehan,
               _________________              _______________      ________
          Phinney, Bass & Green, P.A. were on brief for appellees.
          ___________________________

                                 ____________________

                                     May 9, 1996
                                 ____________________

                              
          ____________________

          *  Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

                    Per Curiam.  The Supreme Court of New Hampshire  issued
                    __________

          its  opinion  on  March  12,  1996,  in  City  of  Portsmouth  v.
                                                   ____________________

          Schlesinger, et al., No.  95-399, 1996 WL 112,644 (N.H.  Mar. 12,
          ___________________

          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. Stat. Ann. 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.
                           ________

                                         -2-