Serving the State of New Hampshire Since 1908
School Boards & School Districts

NH School Board & School District Law

Beyond our labor relation services, Upton & Hatfield provides general advisory services to School Districts and School Boards across New Hampshire. The School Law Group has extensive experience in, and a commitment to, school law and its related areas, working with school boards and school districts regarding numerous issues. This included right-to-know requests, the public contracting and bidding process, and enforcement of District rules and regulations. We likewise regularly assist School Districts and School Boards in navigating the State administrative process. The firm has represented school districts in New Hampshire for more than 40 years and prides itself on its continued successful practice of assisting School Districts and School Board on a variety of issues.

In addition to representing School Boards and School Districts, Upton & Hatfield also represents approximately 30 cities and towns in a similar capacity. There is frequent collaboration between our Municipal and School Law attorneys, which serves as an added benefit to our public clients. The knowledge and experience required for successful representation of both School District and Municipalities frequently overlaps, and the collaborative nature of Upton & Hatfield allows both practice groups to leverage the firm’s experience on behalf of our clients.

Upton & Hatfield maintains offices in four geographic locations—Concord, Portsmouth, Hillsborough, and Peterborough. Our footprint across New Hampshire allow for easy access to school districts throughout the state. Members of the School Law Group are actively involved with the New Hampshire School Administrators Association, the New Hampshire School Boards Association, and the Council of School Attorneys.

Representative Matters

  • Zoning & Land Use Law Seth Peters, et al. v. Town of Nottingham, Rockingham Sup. Ct.

    Successfully defended Town's denial of a building permit on a substandard right-of-way.

  • Zoning & Land Use Law Kulick's v. Town of Winchester, Docket Number 2016-0054

    Successfully defended a challenge to a planning board decision granting a site plan for the construction of a gas station and Dunkin’ Donuts in town. The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the board properly considered the application under the administrative finality doctrine, properly granted waivers for the site plan, and the applicant’s storm water management plan complied with the town’s storm water regulations.

  • Zoning & Land Use Law Doyle v. Town Gilmanton, 155 N.H. 733 (2007)

    Established authority of planning board to establish a buildable area separate and apart from the zoning ordinance.

  • Zoning & Land Use Law Forster v. Town of Henniker 167 N.H. 745 (2015)

    The Supreme Court upheld the Town’s position that a wedding center was not accessory to an agricultural use.

  • Zoning & Land Use Law Hannaford Bros. Co. v. Town of Bedford, 164 N.H. 764 (2013)

    The Supreme Court found that a supermarket owner did not have standing to appeal the Town’s grant of a variance to a competitor.

  • Zoning & Land Use Law Daniels v. Town of Londonderry, 157 N.H. 519 (2008)

    This Supreme Court decision upheld the Town’s decision to approve a cell phone tower and explored the interface of the Federal Telecommunications Act and the law of variances.

  • Zoning & Land Use Law Cheryl Poussard, et al. v. Town of Nottingham, Rockingham Sup. Ct.

    The Court affirmed the Zoning Board’s decision and found that the Board’s decision to grant a special exception was neither unlawful nor unreasonable.

  • Zoning & Land Use Law Landmark Planning & Development, LLC v. Town of Greenfield

    Town of Greenfield Zoning Board of Adjustment and Town of Greenfield Planning Board, Hillsborough Sup. Ct. Town prevailed on a number of issues involving a major subdivision.

  • Zoning & Land Use Law Tonnesen v. Town of Gilmanton, 156 N.H. 813 (2008)

    This Supreme Court decision upheld the Town’s denial of a special exception for aircraft takeoffs and landings.

  • Municipal Real Estate Dow v. Town of Effingham, 148 N.H. 121 (2002)

    Successfully enforced the Town's ordinance and procedures for implementing the ordinance over objection of a racetrack owner. The decision clarified the Town's authority to enact ordinances regardless of motivation and to inspect a permitee's premises.

  • Municipal Real Estate Doyle v. Town Gilmanton, 155 N.H. 733 (2007)

    Established authority of planning board to establish a buildable area separate and apart from the zoning ordinance.

  • General Counsel Appeal of Pennichuck Water Works, 160 N.H. 18 (2010)

    This Supreme Court decision upheld a Public Utilities Commission order authorizing the City of Nashua to acquire New Hampshire’s largest investor-owned utility, Pennichuck Water Works, by eminent domain.

  • General Counsel Daniels v. Town of Londonderry, 157 N.H. 519 (2008)

    This Supreme Court decision upheld the town’s decision to approve a cell phone tower and explored the interface of the Federal Telecommunications Act and the law of variances.

  • General Counsel Appeal of Town of Deerfield, 162 N.H. 601 (2011)

    The Supreme Court upheld the town’s position that it was not required to recognize a collective bargaining unit.

  • General Counsel Forster v. Town of Henniker, 167 N.H. 745 (2015)

    The Supreme Court upheld the town’s position that a wedding center was not accessory to an agricultural use.

/

Why Hire Us?

Our Promise to Our Clients
  • A Reputation for Excellence

    We are known for our unwavering commitment to achieving the objectives of our clients.

  • A Legacy of Successful Results

    Our 100-year legacy is built on achieving successful results for our clients.

  • Committed to the Community

    We are proud to support a number of worthy non-profit organizations as a way to give back to our community.

  • Diverse Breadth of Experience

    We provide our clients with full-service legal representation across a variety of practice areas.

  • Client-Focused Solutions

    We pride ourselves on providing our clients with personalized legal representation that meets their unique needs.

  • Experience on Your Side

    Founded in 1908, we put more than 100 years of practice and experience to work for our clients.

A Reputation for Outstanding Service

Developed Client by Client
  • “The attorneys and staff at the Hillsborough office were very knowledgeable and helpful. I have also used them for estate planning and have recommended them to many of my friends and family.”

    - Amanda V.
  • “Heather Burns and Michael McGrath were a methodical and dedicated team throughout my medical malpractice case. They were relentless in their search for every detail and aspect of their findings. They left no stone unturned.”

    - Christina L.
  • “We would like to thank you for your guidance and assistance as we went through the process of estate planning. Your kindness, patience, and calmness were such a gift throughout the process.”

    - M & T
  • “I worked with Sabrina Beavens to draw up my will, medical directives and POA. I couldn’t have been more pleased with the turn-around time and charges associated. Extremely professional & very easy to work with. I couldn't be any happier.”

    - Joshua M.
  • “I was extremely happy with Upton and Hatfield's real estate service. The attorneys and staff at the Hillsborough office were very knowledgeable and helpful. I have also used them for estate planning and recommended them to many of my friends and family.”

    - Amanda V.
/