Merriam v. Childs

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• providing that the victim of intercepted oral communication must have a “reasonable expectation . . . that her communications will not be intercepted.”
• explaining that where legislature uses two different words, it generally means two different things
• interpreting former version of New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 512 as prohibiting the jury \in both civil and criminal cases from drawing negative inferences from the invocation of the right against self-incrimination\
• declining to address the issue whether RSA 570-A:1, IV(a) (1) creates a statutory exemption for domestic eavesdropping because the application of that statute “requires factual findings not made by the trial court”
• plaintiff not required to offer expert testimony to prove emotional distress from invasion of privacy caused by improper wiretapping of conversations
• action against wiretapper for invasion of privacy

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).