This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
2004-617, HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR CO., INC. & a. v. SEACOAST HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC.
agreements with the appellee, Seacoast Harley - Davidson (Seacoast), The relevant facts are undisputed. The appellants entered into franchise
Industry Board (board) as premature. We affirm. challenging the sub ject matter jurisdiction of the New Hampshire Motor Vehicle appeal an order of the Superior Court (Perkins, J.) dismissing their appeal (Harley Davidson) and its subsidiary, Buell Distribution Company, LLC (Buell), NADEAU, J. The appellants, Harley - Davidson Motor Company, Inc.
A. Bray on the brief, and Mr. Holmes orally), fo r the appellee. Wiggin & Nourie, P.A., of Manchester (Gregory A. Holmes and Stephanie
orally), for the appellants. (Nicholas T. Christakos and Jay M. McDannell on the brief, and Mr. Christakos on the brief), and Sutherland Asbill & Bren nan LLP, of Washington, D.C. Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green, P.A., of Manchester (Robert R. Lucic
Opinion Issued: June 23, 2005 Argued: April 14, 2005
SEACOAST HARLEY - DAVI DSON, INC.
v.
HARLEY - DAVIDSON MOTO R COMPANY, INC. & a.
No. 2 004 - 617 Rockingham
___________________________
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. O pinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 Errors may be reported by E - mail at the following address: errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Hampshire, One Noble Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as 2
concurred. BRODERICK, C.J., and DALIANIS, DUGGAN and GALWAY, JJ.,
Affirmed.
Books & Video v. Town of Troy, 149 N.H. 569, 575 ( 2003). Compare Beggs v. Reading Company, 103 N.H. 156, 158 (1961), with Route 12 proceedings because it cannot be conferred where it does not already exist. the issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time in the waiver of the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Unlike personal jurisdiction, now before us, however, is not one where litigation of the merits will result in to later contest the trial court’s ruling on the issue. Id. at 423 - 24. The case jurisdiction must pursue an immediate appeal to this co urt or waive the ability matter jurisdiction. In Mosier, we held that a defendant who contests personal N.H. 415 (1997), to authorize interlocutory appeal of challenges to subject The appellants urge us to extend our holding in Mosier v. Kinley, 142
interlocutory order. of final orders. It does not, however, authorize a separate, earlier appeal of an expressly permits parties to raise issues related to interlocutory orders in appeals board’s ruling on a motion for reconside ration of the final order. The statute RSA 357 - C:1 2, VII authorizes appeals of final orders within thirty days after the de novo. Town of Acworth v. Fall Mtn. Reg. Sch. Dist., 151 N.H. 399, 401 (2004). Because interpretation of a statute is a question of law, we review the issue
exempt from this limitation on appeal. We conclude that it is not. before us is whether a challenge to the board’s subject matter jurisdiction is application for reconsideration of the final order or decision.” The question to the superior court within 30 days after the date the board rules on the board may appeal the final order, including all interlocutory orders or decisions, RSA 357 - C:1 2, VII provides that, “Any party to a proceeding before the
premature a nd this appeal followed. appeal in the superior court. The superior court dismissed the appeal as Massachusetts. The board denied the motion and the appellants filed an board did not extend to distributor decisions affecting zip codes in claim; they advanced several arguments, including that the jurisdiction of the (Supp. 2004). The appellants moved to dismiss the protest for failure to state a agreement. Seacoast then filed a protest with the board, see RSA 357 - C:12 these zip codes had been pr eviously assigned to Seacoast under its franchise to reassign nine zip codes located in Massachusetts to a Massachusetts dealer; territory. In February 2003, Harley Davidson advised Seacoast that it intended auth orizing Seacoast to sell the appellants’ products within its assigned