New Hampshire
How Feldman v. New York applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Remedies.
New Hampshire follows a similar principle to Feldman v. New York, emphasizing the need for plaintiffs to demonstrate entitlement to specific remedies through a detailed analysis of the underlying facts. The state often allows for broad discretion in awarding remedies based on the appropriateness of the circumstances surrounding the loss suffered.
In New Hampshire, the remedies available are typically either legal or equitable, and the court will assess the appropriateness of a remedy based on principles of justice and fairness, particularly in cases involving significant discretion and injury.
The court affirmed that equitable remedies should be tailored to fit the unique circumstances of each case, reflecting the flexibility found in Feldman v. New York.
The court discussed the necessity of showing that legal remedies are inadequate before an equitable remedy can be granted, in line with the principles articulated in Feldman.
The court established that restitution is a valid remedy in New Hampshire, especially where unjust enrichment occurs, akin to the restitution principles noted in Feldman.
New Hampshire's approach aligns with federal principles found in the Restatement of Remedies, particularly in favoring equitable relief when legal remedies are inadequate. However, New Hampshire emphasizes a more case-specific analysis, often allowing broader discretion to trial courts compared to some federal jurisdictions.
Knowledge of remedies and their appropriate applications is frequently tested on the New Hampshire bar exam, including an emphasis on distinguishing between legal and equitable remedies.