If you only remember one point about filing a lawsuit without a lawyer in New Hampshire, remember this: New Hampshire calls the opening paper a complaint / writ (forum-dependent). Self-represented parties file in Superior Court (Circuit Court for many civil matters). Individuals may appear pro se. Entities generally need New Hampshire counsel. Procedure, examples, and the opinions below hang off New Hampshire Rules of Civil Procedure / Superior Court rules. E-filing: Odyssey File & Serve (New Hampshire e-Filing). Self-represented e-filing is available in many case types; Circuit Court small claims remains form-driven and clerk-assisted. Service: N.H. RSA ch. 510; applicable court rules. Small claims: Circuit Court small-claims docket (generally up to $10,000).
Can you litigate pro se in New Hampshire?
Individuals may appear pro se. Entities generally need New Hampshire counsel.
Pro se (sometimes in propria persona or self-represented) means you speak for yourself. Courts often construe pro se papers liberally on formatting, but they do not invent claims you failed to plead, excuse missed statutes of limitation, or waive service defects. If a corporation is on the other side with counsel, you will still be held to the New Hampshire Rules of Civil Procedure / Superior Court rules.
New Hampshire Judicial Branch self-help center publishes Circuit Court forms.
New Hampshire opinions on pro se practice
In the Matter of Karen Birmingham and Gregory Birmingham
In the Matter of Karen Birmingham and Gregory Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51 (2006)
…er was represented by counsel while the respondent appeared pro se. Until approximately January 2001, the respondent was employed as a software developer and consultant at a company in Merrimack. He was reportedly unemployed from January 2001 until approximately January 2002. In September 2002, both parties appeared at the Salem Family Division for a Case Manager Conference. At…
On pro se, In the Matter of Karen Birmingham and Gregory Birmingham speaks to the New Hampshire dispute in this passage: "Until approximately January 2001, the respondent was employed as a software developer and consultant at a company in Merrimack. He was reportedly unemployed from January 2001 until approximately January 2002." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Jon and Lynette Emerson v. Town of Stratford & a.
Jon and Lynette Emerson v. Town of Stratford & a., 139 N.H. 629 (1995)
…ther a court may award the sanction of attorney’s fees to a pro se litigant who does not incur any obligation to pay for an attorney. We are now prepared to join the majority of jurisdictions that have answered the question in the negative. See, e.g., Kay v. Ehrler, 111 S. Ct. 1435, 1436 (1991) (“/P]ro se litigant who is not a lawyer is not entitled to attorney’s fees [under 42…
Practitioners open Jon and Lynette Emerson v. Town of Stratford & a. when New Hampshire pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "We are now prepared to join the majority of jurisdictions that have answered the question in the negative. See, e.g., Kay v. Ehrler, 111 S. Ct." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Exeter Hospital v. Debora and Harvey Hall — Johnson, J., concurring
Exeter Hospital v. Debora and Harvey Hall — Johnson, J., concurring, 137 N.H. 397 (1993)
…ations defense sua sponte. *401Whether the litigants appear pro se or are represented by counsel, it is the defendant’s responsibility to raise an affirmative defense, such as the statute of limitations, and failure to do so within a prescribed period of time should be deemed a waiver, see Yeaton v. Skillings, 100 N.H. 316, 320, 125 A.2d 923, 926 (1956); R. WlEBUSCH, 4 NEW HAMP…
Practitioners open Exeter Hospital v. Debora and Harvey Hall — Johnson, J., concurring when New Hampshire pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Whether the litigants appear pro se or are represented by counsel, it is the defendant’s responsibility to raise an affirmative defense, such as the statute of limitations, and failure to do so within a prescribed period of time should be deemed a waiver, see Yeaton v." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
In re The Proposed New Hampshire Rules of Civil Procedure
In re The Proposed New Hampshire Rules of Civil Procedure, 139 N.H. 512 (1995)
…of rules and statutory provisions is the difficulty that a pro se litigant or new practitioner faces when approaching New Hampshire litigation. We do not see how the Proposed Rules alleviate this difficulty in the hands of a pro se litigant, except for the ease with which the provisions may be transported. The elements of Proposed Rule 11, for example, would likely engender fa…
On pro se, In re The Proposed New Hampshire Rules of Civil Procedure speaks to the New Hampshire dispute in this passage: "New Hampshire litigation. We do not see how the Proposed Rules alleviate this difficulty in the hands of a pro se litigant, except for the ease with which the provisions may be transported." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
The State of New Hampshire v. Robert Towle — Lynn, J., concurring
The State of New Hampshire v. Robert Towle — Lynn, J., concurring, 162 N.H. 799 (2011)
…tion for the trial court’s denial of his request to proceed pro se, such a theory is legally unsound. The defendant voiced two complaints about Attorney Soldati: (1) that Soldati had a conflict of interest because he was Mayor of Somersworth; and (2) that Soldati had not had sufficient meetings or communication with him and was not adequately prepared for trial. When, at the ou…
The State of New Hampshire v. Robert Towle — Lynn, J., concurring is worth reading on New Hampshire pro se because the court put the point in its own words: "The defendant voiced two complaints about Attorney Soldati: (1) that Soldati had a conflict of interest because he was Mayor of Somersworth; and (2) that Soldati had not had sufficient meetings or communication with him and was not adequately prepared for trial." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
The State of New Hampshire v. Michael Brodowski
The State of New Hampshire v. Michael Brodowski, 135 N.H. 197 (1991)
Brock, C.J. The defendant, Michael Brodowski, appearing pro se, was tried before a jury in the Superior Court {Gray, J.) on two counts of armed robbery and one count of robbery. He was convicted on all three charges and sentenced to serve four to eight years in the State Prison, with additional suspended terms of four to eight and three to six years. On appeal, the defendan…
Practitioners open The State of New Hampshire v. Michael Brodowski when New Hampshire pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Brock, C.J. The defendant, Michael Brodowski, appearing pro se, was tried before a jury in the Superior Court {Gray, J.) on two counts of armed robbery and one count of robbery." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Robert DeButts v. Ron Laroche & a.
Robert DeButts v. Ron Laroche & a., 142 N.H. 845 (1998)
…be admissible at trial.” Cf. SUPER. CT. R. 62. Counsel and pro se litigants are responsible for knowing the content of the court rules applicable to their actions. Cf. American Bd. of Trade, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 122 N.H. 344, 346, 444 A.2d 550, 551 (1982) (affirming refusal to strike default judgment entered because attorney violated procedural rule); Brady v. Duran…
On pro se, Robert DeButts v. Ron Laroche & a. speaks to the New Hampshire dispute in this passage: "Cf. SUPER. CT. R. 62. Counsel and pro se litigants are responsible for knowing the content of the court rules applicable to their actions. Cf. American Bd. of Trade, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 122 N.H. 344, 346, 444 A." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Walking through New Hampshire facts
Use this walkthrough to see which New Hampshire authority does the work at each step.
A person in New Hampshire wants to sue without a lawyer and has not yet filed anything.
- Confirm you may appear without counsel: Individuals may appear pro se. Entities generally need New Hampshire counsel.
- Draft a complaint / writ (forum-dependent) and file it in Superior Court (Circuit Court for many civil matters). E-filing: Self-represented e-filing is available in many case types; Circuit Court small claims remains form-driven and clerk-assisted.
- Serve under N.H. RSA ch. 510; applicable court rules. Serve process under RSA chapter 510 and the court’s rules — sheriff service is common. File the return.
- Expect discovery under Applicable civil rules govern discovery in Superior/Circuit Court. Small claims discovery is limited. A jury demand follows Demand a jury under applicable rules for eligible Superior Court claims. Small claims are non-jury.
Missing service or a limitations deadline is not excused because the filer is pro se in New Hampshire. The evidence companion is the New Hampshire evidence guide.
Role of the judge and the jury
- The judge decides questions of law: what the statute means, whether a pleading states a claim, which evidence is admissible, and how the jury (if any) is instructed. In bench trials and most small-claims matters, the judge also finds the facts.
- The jury decides disputed questions of fact in jury-eligible civil cases when a timely demand is made and any jury fee is paid.
- Demand a jury under applicable rules for eligible Superior Court claims. Small claims are non-jury.
Practical tip: decide before filing whether you want a jury. Late demands are often waived. Small-claims paths (Circuit Court small-claims docket) usually trade speed for no jury and limited discovery.
Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
Pleadings are the formal papers that frame the lawsuit. In New Hampshire the plaintiff's opening paper is typically a complaint / writ (forum-dependent). It should:
- Identify the parties and the court (Superior Court (Circuit Court for many civil matters) or the small-claims forum).
- Allege facts that, if true, entitle you to relief under a recognized claim.
- Demand judgment (money, injunction, declaratory relief, or other remedies the court can grant).
- Include a jury demand if you want one and the claim is jury-triable.
The defendant responds with an answer (admissions, denials, affirmative defenses) and/or a motion to dismiss challenging legal sufficiency, jurisdiction, or service. Later motions (compel discovery, summary judgment, limine) are usually not “pleadings” in the technical sense, but they drive most civil cases.
New Hampshire pleadings opinions
Jay Edwards, Inc. v. Phillip Baker & a.
Jay Edwards, Inc. v. Phillip Baker & a., 130 N.H. 41 (1987)
…tate, the plaintiff appeals the granting of the defendants’ motion to dismiss and the denial of the plaintiff’s right to a jury trial by the Superior Court 0O’Neil, J.). We hold that the plaintiff did not state a cause of action and therefore affirm. The plaintiff operates a Toyota dealership on property leased from F.A.D. Enterprises, Inc. (F.A.D.) and abutting the Spaulding T…
Practitioners open Jay Edwards, Inc. v. Phillip Baker & a. when New Hampshire pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Superior Court 0O’Neil, J.). We hold that the plaintiff did not state a cause of action and therefore affirm. The plaintiff operates a Toyota dealership on property leased from F.A.D. Enterprises, Inc. (F.A.D." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
John F. McGranahan v. Victor W. Dahar
John F. McGranahan v. Victor W. Dahar, 119 N.H. 758 (1979)
…1972). Therefore, the matter can rarely be disposed of on a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Thomson v. Cash, 119 N.H. 371, 402 A.2d 651 (1979). An absolute privilege, however, is tantamount to an immunity. It is not conditioned on the actor’s good faith. Because an absolute privilege bars an injured party from recovering any recompense, it “must be reserved for those…
Practitioners open John F. McGranahan v. Victor W. Dahar when New Hampshire pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Therefore, the matter can rarely be disposed of on a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Thomson v. Cash, 119 N.H. 371, 402 A.2d 651 (1979). An absolute privilege, however, is tantamount to an immunity. It is not conditioned on the actor’s good faith." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
ERG, Inc. v. Theodore Barnes & a. ERG, Inc. v. Carl Schmelzer
ERG, Inc. v. Theodore Barnes & a. ERG, Inc. v. Carl Schmelzer, 137 N.H. 186 (1993)
…defendants filed motions to dismiss in all four cases. The motion to dismiss in McCoole v. Barnes & a. was heard first, and the other three motions to dismiss were held in abeyance pending its outcome. After a hearing, the Rockingham County Superior Court (Gray, J.) granted the motion to dismiss on grounds that the writ failed to state a cause of action. McCoole filed a motion…
New Hampshire opinions such as ERG, Inc. v. Theodore Barnes & a. ERG, Inc. v. Carl Schmelzer are cited where pleadings is disputed. The court stated: "The motion to dismiss in McCoole v. Barnes & a. was heard first, and the other three motions to dismiss were held in abeyance pending its outcome. After a hearing, the Rockingham County Superior Court (Gray, J." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Alan F. Beane v. Dana S. Beane & Co., P.C. & A.
Alan F. Beane v. Dana S. Beane & Co., P.C. & A., 160 N.H. 708 (2010)
…t. On May 19, 2009, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s December 2008 *711 writ was time-barred because he knew or should have known of his cause of action against the defendants no later than April 5,2005, the date of the IRS notice of deficiency. The plaintiff asserts that the tria…
Alan F. Beane v. Dana S. Beane & Co., P.C. & A. is worth reading on New Hampshire pleadings because the court put the point in its own words: "On May 19, 2009, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Gloria Konefal & a. v. Hollis/Brookline Cooperative School District & a.
Gloria Konefal & a. v. Hollis/Brookline Cooperative School District & a., 143 N.H. 256 (1998)
…l a decision of the Superior Court (Hollman, J.) granting a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, Hollis/Brookline Cooperative School District, the Hollis/Brookline Cooperative School Board, the Hollis School District, the Hollis School Board, the Hollis School District superintendent, and various administrators of the two school districts. We affirm. In considering the de…
Practitioners open Gloria Konefal & a. v. Hollis/Brookline Cooperative School District & a. when New Hampshire pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Hollis/Brookline Cooperative School District, the Hollis/Brookline Cooperative School Board, the Hollis School District, the Hollis School Board, the Hollis School District superintendent, and various administrators of the two school districts. We affirm." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Meldrim Thomson, Jr. v. Kevin R. Cash Amoskeag Press, Inc.
Meldrim Thomson, Jr. v. Kevin R. Cash Amoskeag Press, Inc., 119 N.H. 371 (1979)
…rm,” was defamatory and injured his reputation. Defendants’ motion to dismiss alleged that as a matter of law plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action in libel. The trial court, after hearing, denied both the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment. “ ‘In determining whether, as a matter of law, a motion to dismiss should be granted, all facts proper…
Practitioners open Meldrim Thomson, Jr. v. Kevin R. Cash Amoskeag Press, Inc. when New Hampshire pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Defendants’ motion to dismiss alleged that as a matter of law plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action in libel. The trial court, after hearing, denied both the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Theresa Provencal v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company and Cruickshank & Company
Theresa Provencal v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company and Cruickshank & Company, 132 N.H. 742 (1990)
…J. The Superior Court (Perkins, J.) granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss this contract action brought to enforce an offer of settlement. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting the motion because her pleadings demonstrated the existence of genuine issues of material fact warranting a hearing on the merits. For the reasons that follow, we affi…
Practitioners open Theresa Provencal v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company and Cruickshank & Company when New Hampshire pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "J. The Superior Court (Perkins, J.) granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss this contract action brought to enforce an offer of settlement." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Albert L. Berlinguette & A. v. Charles R. Stanton, Mayor City of Manchester & A.; Hampshire Harbor, Inc. v. Amoskeag
…the demolition against Amoskeag Savings Bank, which filed a motion to dismiss. Because of the similarity of the issues to those in the Berlinguette case, Pappagianis, J., transferred the question without ruling to this court. All cases were consolidated for oral argument on the question whether the complaints state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Pleadings a…
Albert L. Berlinguette & A. v. Charles R. Stanton, Mayor City of Manchester & A.; Hampshire Harbor, Inc. v. Amoskeag is worth reading on New Hampshire pleadings because the court put the point in its own words: "Amoskeag Savings Bank, which filed a motion to dismiss. Because of the similarity of the issues to those in the Berlinguette case, Pappagianis, J., transferred the question without ruling to this court." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
How to file and serve in New Hampshire
Filing
- Choose the correct forum: Superior Court (Circuit Court for many civil matters) for larger or complex civil cases; Circuit Court small-claims docket when your claim fits generally up to $10,000.
- Prepare the complaint / writ (forum-dependent) (and any required cover sheet, civil case information statement, or summons).
- Pay the filing fee or apply for a fee waiver / indigency finding as New Hampshire practice allows.
- Obtain a signed summons (or local equivalent) from the clerk after the case is opened.
Governing procedure: New Hampshire Rules of Civil Procedure / Superior Court rules.
Service of process
Filing alone does not start the clock against the defendant in a meaningful way — service does. Authority: N.H. RSA ch. 510; applicable court rules.
Serve process under RSA chapter 510 and the court’s rules — sheriff service is common. File the return.
Defective service is one of the most common reasons pro se cases are dismissed without prejudice (or worse, delayed until limitations problems appear). Keep copies of every affidavit or return.
New Hampshire service opinions
South Down Recreation Association v. Philip and Carole Moran
South Down Recreation Association v. Philip and Carole Moran, 141 N.H. 484 (1996)
…not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants because service of process was not in accordance with the long-arm statute. See RSA 510:4 (1983 & Supp. 1996). We affirm. The plaintiff sued the defendants in district court for payment of condominium dues and assessments. See RSA 356-B:15 (1995). The defendants are residents of Salem, Massachusetts. The writ was served on the…
South Down Recreation Association v. Philip and Carole Moran is worth reading on New Hampshire service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "See RSA 510:4 (1983 & Supp. 1996). We affirm. The plaintiff sued the defendants in district court for payment of condominium dues and assessments. See RSA 356-B:15 (1995). The defendants are residents of Salem, Massachusetts." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Impact Food Sales, Inc. v. Carl Evans d/b/a Warehouse Club Distributing Company
Impact Food Sales, Inc. v. Carl Evans d/b/a Warehouse Club Distributing Company, 160 N.H. 386 (2010)
…of the statute and instead “attempted to *390create its own service of process contrary to both New Hampshire Statute and existing case law.” Impact Food responds that RSA 510:4 only requires that certified mail be sent to the defendant and that additional service is optional. Based upon case law from other states, Impact Food argues that when certified mail is unclaimed, notic…
On service of process, Impact Food Sales, Inc. v. Carl Evans d/b/a Warehouse Club Distributing Company speaks to the New Hampshire dispute in this passage: "New Hampshire Statute and existing case law.” Impact Food responds that RSA 510:4 only requires that certified mail be sent to the defendant and that additional service is optional." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Maria Donnelly & a. v. Donna Eastman
Maria Donnelly & a. v. Donna Eastman, 149 N.H. 631 (2003)
…proach, writs may be entered with the court either prior to service of process or after service of process. Rule 2, which became effective September 1,2001, establishes a bright-line test in contrast to the former common law rule that an “action begins when a plaintiff or his counsel completes a writ with the intention to cause it to be served on the defendant.” Desaulnier, 140…
New Hampshire opinions such as Maria Donnelly & a. v. Donna Eastman are cited where service of process is disputed. The court stated: "Rule 2, which became effective September 1,2001, establishes a bright-line test in contrast to the former common law rule that an “action begins when a plaintiff or his counsel completes a writ with the intention to cause it to be served on the defendant." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Karen Brodowski v. Nathan Supowitz & A.
Karen Brodowski v. Nathan Supowitz & A., 122 N.H. 694 (1982)
…ault or decree should have been entered against him because service of process was defective. We will not address the substance of this argument because by moving to file a general appearance, the defendant submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. At no time did the defendant raise the issue of defective service until this appeal. Rather, the answer which he filed in the tri…
Practitioners open Karen Brodowski v. Nathan Supowitz & A. when New Hampshire service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "We will not address the substance of this argument because by moving to file a general appearance, the defendant submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. At no time did the defendant raise the issue of defective service until this appeal." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Linwood Hatch & A. v. Caroline E. Hooper & A.
Linwood Hatch & A. v. Caroline E. Hooper & A., 101 N.H. 214 (1958)
…service on the Motor Vehicle Commissioner, “notice” of the service of process and a “copy of the process” shall be “forthwith” sent by registered mail to the defendant. RSA 264:2. Their contention is that the notice sent by the plaintiffs’ attorney was insufficient because it failed to inform the defendants that the statutory procedure “confer [s] jurisdiction . . . which will…
On service of process, Linwood Hatch & A. v. Caroline E. Hooper & A. speaks to the New Hampshire dispute in this passage: "Motor Vehicle Commissioner, “notice” of the service of process and a “copy of the process” shall be “forthwith” sent by registered mail to the defendant. RSA 264:2." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Louis C. Wyman, Attorney General v. Willard Uphaus
Louis C. Wyman, Attorney General v. Willard Uphaus, 100 N.H. 1 (1955)
…se penalties accordingly.” Both parties agree that personal service of process within the jurisdiction involved is essential to confer upon a tribunal jurisdiction to proceed in personam against a nonresident. Nottingham v. Company, 84 N. H. 419, 421. They differ, however, on whether this requirement has been met in this case. It is agreed that there was personal service on Uph…
On service of process, Louis C. Wyman, Attorney General v. Willard Uphaus speaks to the New Hampshire dispute in this passage: "Both parties agree that personal service of process within the jurisdiction involved is essential to confer upon a tribunal jurisdiction to proceed in personam against a nonresident. Nottingham v. Company, 84 N. H. 419, 421." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Delbert M. Pitman v. C. Carroll Cunningham & A.
Delbert M. Pitman v. C. Carroll Cunningham & A., 100 N.H. 49 (1955)
…resident parties as witnesses are privileged from arrest or summons upon civil process while in attendance upon, going to, or returning from the trial of a cause in the courts of this state, and an action thus begun is subject to abatement for want of proper service.” Martin v. Whitney, 74 N. H. 505, 506. See also, Dolber v. Young, 81 N. H. 157, 158, and Dickinson v. Farwell, 7…
New Hampshire opinions such as Delbert M. Pitman v. C. Carroll Cunningham & A. are cited where service of process is disputed. The court stated: "Martin v. Whitney, 74 N. H. 505, 506. See also, Dolber v. Young, 81 N. H. 157, 158, and Dickinson v." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Registering for e-filing
New Hampshire's primary electronic filing path is Odyssey File & Serve (New Hampshire e-Filing).
How to register: Register for New Hampshire e-Filing, complete the agreement, and pay fees or request a fee waiver.
Pro se reality check: Self-represented e-filing is available in many case types; Circuit Court small claims remains form-driven and clerk-assisted.
When you e-file:
- Use PDF/A or the portal's accepted formats; flatten forms before upload.
- Check that party names match the caption exactly.
- Calendar the clerk's acceptance email — a rejected filing is often treated as unfiled.
- Serve other parties under the rules (e-service through the portal may not replace initial service of process).
Discovery
After pleadings, parties exchange information. In New Hampshire:
Applicable civil rules govern discovery in Superior/Circuit Court. Small claims discovery is limited.
Typical tools:
- Interrogatories — written questions answered under oath.
- Requests for production — documents, ESI, and tangible things.
- Requests for admission — force yes/no authenticity or fact stipulations.
- Depositions — live testimony under oath (expensive; plan carefully if you are self-represented).
If the other side stonewalls, a motion to compel and, later, sanctions motions are the enforcement path. Courts expect meet-and-confer first in most jurisdictions.
New Hampshire discovery opinions
Sandra Fenlon & a. v. Charles L. Thayer, M.D. Sandra Fenlon & a. v. Paul Driscoll, M.D., and Portsmouth Hospital
…nal disability and scarring. During the course of pre-trial discovery the plaintiffs obtained a copy of a letter from Dr. William D. Moyle, Jr., of Keene, to attorney Robert M. Larsen, of Concord, whose firm represents Dr. Thayer. Attorney Larsen had consulted Dr. Moyle to get a preliminary opinion on the medical malpractice issues, and as a potential expert witness. Dr. Moyle’…
Practitioners open Sandra Fenlon & a. v. Charles L. Thayer, M.D. Sandra Fenlon & a. v. Paul Driscoll, M.D., and Portsmouth Hospital when New Hampshire discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "During the course of pre-trial discovery the plaintiffs obtained a copy of a letter from Dr. William D. Moyle, Jr., of Keene, to attorney Robert M. Larsen, of Concord, whose firm represents Dr. Thayer. Attorney Larsen had consulted Dr." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The State of New Hampshire v. Thomas Miskell
The State of New Hampshire v. Thomas Miskell, 122 N.H. 842 (1982)
…to questions asked of a prosecutrix in a rape case during a discovery deposition. The Trial Court {Dunn, J.) granted a motion to compel answers to the deposition, and this interlocutory appeal followed. Because RSA 632-A:6 is applicable to the discovery process, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand. The prosecutrix has alleged that she was raped on the night of August…
On discovery, The State of New Hampshire v. Thomas Miskell speaks to the New Hampshire dispute in this passage: "The Trial Court {Dunn, J.) granted a motion to compel answers to the deposition, and this interlocutory appeal followed. Because RSA 632-A:6 is applicable to the discovery process, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Petition of the State of New Hampshire (State v. Theodosopoulos)
Petition of the State of New Hampshire (State v. Theodosopoulos), 153 N.H. 318 (2006)
…granting defendant Thomas Theodosopoulos’ motion to compel discovery. We deny the petition. The record supports the following facts. On October 18, 2004, the defendant was involved in a motor vehicle collision on Route 3, in Hooksett, with a vehicle driven by Jason Defina, an off-duty Hooksett police officer. Police officers from the Town of Hooksett were the first police offi…
New Hampshire opinions such as Petition of the State of New Hampshire (State v. Theodosopoulos) are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "Thomas Theodosopoulos’ motion to compel discovery. We deny the petition. The record supports the following facts." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Ashley A. Miller & a. v. Charles P. Basbas
Ashley A. Miller & a. v. Charles P. Basbas, 131 N.H. 332 (1988)
…case with prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s discovery order. The procedural history spans a three-year period during which the defendant sought to have the minor child deposed, and the parents sought to prevent the deposition. The plaintiffs raise the following issues on appeal: (1) in a civil suit regarding alleged sexual abuse, is the plaintiff child of tender…
New Hampshire opinions such as Ashley A. Miller & a. v. Charles P. Basbas are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "The procedural history spans a three-year period during which the defendant sought to have the minor child deposed, and the parents sought to prevent the deposition." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The State of New Hampshire v. Edward K. Ellsworth
The State of New Hampshire v. Edward K. Ellsworth, 136 N.H. 115 (1992)
…to rule in its discretion upon matters relating to pretrial discovery. State v. Sorrell, 120 N.H. 472, 475, 416 A.2d 1375, 1377 (1980). We will not find error absent an abuse of that discretion, nor will we overturn the trial court’s ruling on pretrial discovery unless the error is “prejudicial to the substantive rights of the defendant.” Id. *118At the hearing on his motion to…
On discovery, The State of New Hampshire v. Edward K. Ellsworth speaks to the New Hampshire dispute in this passage: "State v. Sorrell, 120 N.H. 472, 475, 416 A.2d 1375, 1377 (1980). We will not find error absent an abuse of that discretion, nor will we overturn the trial court’s ruling on pretrial discovery unless the error is “prejudicial to the substantive rights of the defendant.” Id." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Clifford J. Ross d/b/a Ross Law Office v. The Home Insurance Company
Clifford J. Ross d/b/a Ross Law Office v. The Home Insurance Company, 146 N.H. 468 (2001)
…ntiff also appeals from the trial court’s denial of certain discovery requests and its award of attorney’s fees. We affirm. *470The relevant facts follow. The plaintiff, an attorney, employed his son, David Ross, as an attorney in his firm in Manchester. On January 13, 1995, June L., a client of the firm, filed a two count writ, alleging that on July 19, 1993, David summoned he…
New Hampshire opinions such as Clifford J. Ross d/b/a Ross Law Office v. The Home Insurance Company are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "We affirm. *470The relevant facts follow. The plaintiff, an attorney, employed his son, David Ross, as an attorney in his firm in Manchester. On January 13, 1995, June L." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
In the Matter of John M. Maynard and Ingrid I. Maynard
In the Matter of John M. Maynard and Ingrid I. Maynard, 155 N.H. 630 (2007)
…e [wife’s] default, eighteen (18) months after the close of discovery, six (6) months after [the wife’s] counsel filed her Appearance in this matter, and four (4) months after the Court’s Order upholding the [wife’s] default.” The husband emphasized that he “should not be held accountable for the [wife’s] • failure to participate in these proceedings, to properly seek discovery…
Practitioners open In the Matter of John M. Maynard and Ingrid I. Maynard when New Hampshire discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Appearance in this matter, and four (4) months after the Court’s Order upholding the [wife’s] default." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The State of New Hampshire v. Daniel Barnes
The State of New Hampshire v. Daniel Barnes, 150 N.H. 715 (2004)
…ree. We review a trial court’s rulings on the management of discovery under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard. See State v. Amirault, 149 N.H. 541, 543 (2003). To establish that the trial court erred under this standard, the defendant must demonstrate that the trial court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case. See id. The tri…
Practitioners open The State of New Hampshire v. Daniel Barnes when New Hampshire discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "We review a trial court’s rulings on the management of discovery under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard. See State v. Amirault, 149 N.H. 541, 543 (2003)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Rules of evidence (short tour)
Trials and many motion hearings are decided on admissible evidence, not on what you know happened. New Hampshire applies the New Hampshire Rules of Evidence. Core ideas:
- Relevance — does the proof make a fact of consequence more or less probable?
- Authenticity — is the exhibit what you claim it is?
- Hearsay — is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, and if so, does an exception apply?
- Privileges — attorney-client, spousal, and other privileges can block inquiry even when the facts are relevant.
For a full New Hampshire walkthrough of hearsay, business records, authenticity, and depositions at trial, read the companion guide: New Hampshire Evidence Law: Admissibility, Hearsay, and Authenticity.
Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
Many civil cases never reach a jury. A party may move for summary judgment by showing there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pro se litigants lose these motions when they respond with argument instead of affidavits, authenticated exhibits, and pinpoint record citations.
New Hampshire summary-judgment opinions
James and Joan Coyle v. William Battles, Esq. & a.
James and Joan Coyle v. William Battles, Esq. & a., 147 N.H. 98 (2001)
…ory judgment action and negligence claims; and (2) granting summary judgment to the defendants, William Battles and H. Edward McBurney, upon the plaintiffs’ breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. We affirm. The following undisputed facts either appear in the record or were found by the trial court. The defendants represented the plaintiffs in a *991994 foreclosure act…
James and Joan Coyle v. William Battles, Esq. & a. is worth reading on New Hampshire summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "William Battles and H. Edward McBurney, upon the plaintiffs’ breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. We affirm. The following undisputed facts either appear in the record or were found by the trial court." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Lois Stewart, Administrator of the Estate of Vicki Lynn Bader v. Seth Bader
Lois Stewart, Administrator of the Estate of Vicki Lynn Bader v. Seth Bader, 154 N.H. 75 (2006)
…ing that he did not murder Vicki; (4) denied his motion for summary judgment upon the plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; (5) failed to sever the plaintiff’s wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims; (6) granted summary judgment to the plaintiff with respect to his liability for enhanced compensatory damages based upon h…
Practitioners open Lois Stewart, Administrator of the Estate of Vicki Lynn Bader v. Seth Bader when New Hampshire summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "ing that he did not murder Vicki; (4) denied his motion for summary judgment upon the plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; (5) failed to sever the plaintiff’s wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims; (6) granted summary ju" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Big League Entertainment, Inc., D/B/A Chunky's Cinema Pub v. Brox Industries, Inc. & a.
…ls from an order of the Superior Court (Groff, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Brox Industries, Inc. (Brox) and Bill Hall, Inc. (Hall). We reverse and remand. The following facts are undisputed. The plaintiff hired Hall to install a septic system and Brox to construct an adjacent parking lot at Chunky’s Cinema Pub in Pelham. The defendants completed co…
New Hampshire opinions such as Big League Entertainment, Inc., D/B/A Chunky's Cinema Pub v. Brox Industries, Inc. & a. are cited where summary judgment is disputed. The court stated: "Superior Court (Groff, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Brox Industries, Inc. (Brox) and Bill Hall, Inc. (Hall). We reverse and remand. The following facts are undisputed." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
John And Annette Kukene v. Jeanne M. Genualdo
John And Annette Kukene v. Jeanne M. Genualdo, 145 N.H. 1 (2000)
…verse possession. In January 1995, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, which the Superior Court (Coffey, J.) denied, finding genuine issues of material fact in dispute. In March 1995, the defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. The Superior Court (Gray, J.) denied the motion. Also in March 1995, the defendant moved for summary judgment. The Superior Court (Coffey,…
On summary judgment, John And Annette Kukene v. Jeanne M. Genualdo speaks to the New Hampshire dispute in this passage: "In January 1995, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, which the Superior Court (Coffey, J.) denied, finding genuine issues of material fact in dispute. In March 1995, the defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. The Superior Court (Gray, J.) denied the motion." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Pro Con Construction, Inc. d/b/a Pro Con Construction Company v. Acadia Insurance Company
…adia), appeals a Superior Court (Manias, J.) order granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Pro Con Construction, Inc. (Pro Con). We reverse and remand. In 1993, Oracle Corporation hired Pro Con to manage the construction of its facility in Nashua. Pro Con hired several subcontractors for the project, including Decorative Concepts, an interior painting contractor. D…
New Hampshire opinions such as Pro Con Construction, Inc. d/b/a Pro Con Construction Company v. Acadia Insurance Company are cited where summary judgment is disputed. The court stated: "Superior Court (Manias, J.) order granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Pro Con Construction, Inc. (Pro Con). We reverse and remand. In 1993, Oracle Corporation hired Pro Con to manage the construction of its facility in Nashua." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Cheryl A. Brown, Personally and as Administratrix v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., Trustee
…rt {Charles T. Gallagher, Esq., Master; Gray, J.), granting summary judgment for the plaintiff in this action for the proceeds of a group life insurance policy. The issues presented are whether the trial court overstepped its authority on motion for summary judgment by resolving a factual dispute in finding that the insured decedent had not been informed of a policy exclusion f…
On summary judgment, Cheryl A. Brown, Personally and as Administratrix v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., Trustee speaks to the New Hampshire dispute in this passage: "Charles T. Gallagher, Esq., Master; Gray, J.), granting summary judgment for the plaintiff in this action for the proceeds of a group life insurance policy." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Dover Mills Partnership v. Commercial Union Insurance Companies d/b/a American Employers Insurance Company
…ng of the Superior Court (Mohl, J.) granting the motion for summary judgment of the defendant, Commercial Union Insurance Companies d/b/a American Employers Insurance Company, in the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action, see RSA 491:22 (1983 & Supp. 1996) (amended 1996). We reverse and remand. The trial court found the following facts after consideration of the evidence in t…
Practitioners open Dover Mills Partnership v. Commercial Union Insurance Companies d/b/a American Employers Insurance Company when New Hampshire summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Superior Court (Mohl, J.) granting the motion for summary judgment of the defendant, Commercial Union Insurance Companies d/b/a American Employers Insurance Company, in the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action, see RSA 491:22 (1983 & Supp. 1996) (amended 1996)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
D. W. Clark Road Equipment, Inc. v. Murray Walter, Inc. and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company
…F&G) appeal from the granting of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, permitting the plaintiff to recover $58,282.80 on a performance bond. The plaintiff, D. W. Clark Road Equipment, Inc. (Clark) has cross-appealed from the denial of its claim for interest and attorney’s fees. The following underlying facts are not in dispute. In 1979, Murray Walter, a general contracto…
Practitioners open D. W. Clark Road Equipment, Inc. v. Murray Walter, Inc. and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company when New Hampshire summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "F&G) appeal from the granting of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, permitting the plaintiff to recover $58,282.80 on a performance bond. The plaintiff, D. W. Clark Road Equipment, Inc." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
How LawDiver can help
LawDiver is built for researching the same authorities a courtroom expects — not for inventing cites.
- LawDiver search — From this guide page, the search rail is scoped to New Hampshire. Search phrases like
pro se,service of process,motion to compel, or your statute number. - Corpus-linked opinions — Every case block above links to a
/casedisplayopinion id that exists in LawDiver's caselaw corpus. Do not paste outside citations into filings unless you have verified them. - Statutes — Where New Hampshire codes are mirrored, open the linked statute sections from this article and read the live text before quoting.
- GoodLaw / citator workflow — Before you rely on an older opinion, check how later New Hampshire cases treat it.
- Evidence companion — Use the New Hampshire evidence guide when you are preparing exhibits or opposing a motion in limine.
- AI research with grounding — Prefer tools that require retrieval from your matter and the LawDiver corpus over chatbots that invent case names.
LawDiver does not file documents for you, give legal advice, or replace a lawyer when the stakes, opposing counsel, or entity-representation rules require one.
New Hampshire case law highlights
Use the topic sections above for pro se practice, pleadings, service, discovery, and summary judgment. Re-run LawDiver searches before hearings — new published opinions appear continuously.
Checklist before you file in New Hampshire
- Confirm you (not an entity) may appear pro se for this claim.
- Pick Circuit Court small-claims docket vs Superior Court (Circuit Court for many civil matters) based on amount and remedy.
- Draft a complaint / writ (forum-dependent) that states facts and a legal theory.
- Register on Odyssey File & Serve (New Hampshire e-Filing) (or confirm paper filing is allowed).
- Arrange proper service under N.H. RSA ch. 510; applicable court rules.
- Calendar answer deadlines, discovery cutoffs, and any jury-demand deadline.
- Research controlling New Hampshire cases and the New Hampshire Rules of Evidence on LawDiver.
- Consider limited-scope or full representation if the other side has counsel or the claim exceeds small-claims complexity.
Key takeaways
- Individuals may appear pro se. Entities generally need New Hampshire counsel.
- Main trial forum: Superior Court (Circuit Court for many civil matters). Smaller disputes often belong in Circuit Court small-claims docket (generally up to $10,000).
- Procedure: New Hampshire Rules of Civil Procedure / Superior Court rules. Opening paper: a complaint / writ (forum-dependent).
- Service: N.H. RSA ch. 510; applicable court rules. Serve process under RSA chapter 510 and the court’s rules — sheriff service is common.
- E-filing: Odyssey File & Serve (New Hampshire e-Filing). Self-represented e-filing is available in many case types; Circuit Court small claims remains form-driven and clerk-assisted.
- Pair this page with the LawDiver search rail (scoped to New Hampshire) and the New Hampshire evidence guide.
Primary search phrases this page targets: file a lawsuit without a lawyer New Hampshire; New Hampshire pro se; New Hampshire e-Filing; how to sue in New Hampshire.
Contents
- What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
- Can you litigate pro se in New Hampshire?
- Role of the judge and the jury
- Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
- How to file and serve in New Hampshire
- Registering for e-filing
- Discovery
- Rules of evidence (short tour)
- Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
- How LawDiver can help
- New Hampshire case law highlights
- Frequently asked questions
What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
Self-represented litigants lose cases when they confuse sources of law. Use these definitions when you research on LawDiver:
| Source | What it is | How you use it in New Hampshire |
|---|---|---|
| Statute | A law enacted by the legislature (or Congress) | Creates rights, duties, damages caps, notice periods, and causes of action |
| Case (opinion) | A written decision of a court resolving a dispute | Interprets statutes and rules; binds lower courts in the same hierarchy when it is controlling precedent |
| Court rule | A procedural regulation adopted by the judiciary | Tells you how to plead, serve, discover, and try a case — e.g. New Hampshire Rules of Civil Procedure / Superior Court rules |
| Regulation | A rule issued by an executive agency under statutory authority | Matters when your claim involves licensed industries, benefits, or administrative prerequisites |
| Local rule / administrative order | County- or court-specific filing practice | Often controls e-filing mandates, cover sheets, and hearing calendars |
A winning New Hampshire theory usually needs all three of: (1) a substantive statute or common-law claim, (2) a pleading that satisfies the civil rules, and (3) admissible evidence under the New Hampshire Rules of Evidence.
Frequently asked questions
How do I file a lawsuit without a lawyer in New Hampshire?
Prepare a complaint / writ (forum-dependent), file it in the correct New Hampshire court (Superior Court (Circuit Court for many civil matters) or Circuit Court small-claims docket), pay or waive the fee, obtain a summons, and complete service under N.H. RSA ch. 510; applicable court rules. Register for Odyssey File & Serve (New Hampshire e-Filing) when e-filing is required or available.
What is the difference between a statute and a court rule?
A statute creates substantive rights and duties. A court rule (such as New Hampshire Rules of Civil Procedure / Superior Court rules) controls procedure — captions, service, discovery, and trial mechanics. You usually need both.
Do I need to register for e-filing?
Self-represented e-filing is available in many case types; Circuit Court small claims remains form-driven and clerk-assisted. Registration steps: Register for New Hampshire e-Filing, complete the agreement, and pay fees or request a fee waiver.
Will I get a jury?
Demand a jury under applicable rules for eligible Superior Court claims. Small claims are non-jury.
What happens in discovery?
Applicable civil rules govern discovery in Superior/Circuit Court. Small claims discovery is limited.
How does LawDiver help a pro se litigant?
It lets you search and read New Hampshire opinions and statutes that actually exist in the LawDiver corpus, with links you can verify — reducing the risk of hallucinated citations — while you still remain responsible for filing, service, and courtroom advocacy.
Disclaimer
LawDiver publishes this guide for public legal-information and SEO education purposes. It is not a substitute for advice from a licensed New Hampshire attorney. Court rules, e-filing vendors, fee schedules, and jurisdictional limits change. Verify every citation and deadline against official New Hampshire sources and the live LawDiver corpus before relying on them in a filing.