159 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2025 27 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Hampshire courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lambertgreen2 sentences2021Cir. 2009) (reviewing trial court’s decision about whether to conduct in camera review of documents and ex parte declaration for abuse of discretion); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining that we refer to the abuse of discretion standard as the unsustainable exercise of discretion standard and describing the requirements of that standard). 2019See Provencher v. Buzzell-Plourde Assoc., 142 N.H. 848, 851 (1998) (noting that we review trial court’s “decision not to hold a hearing for an abuse of discretion”); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295 , 296 3 (2001) (explaining that we refer to abuse of discretion standard as the unsustainable exercise of discretion standard). | 26 | 28 |
State v. Amiraultgreen2 sentences2011State v. Amirault, 149 N.H. 541, 543 , 825 A.2d 1120 (2003). 2003“We review a trial court’s decisions on the management of discovery ... under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” State v. Amirault, 149 N.H. 541, 543 (2003). | 7 | 8 |
In Re Hampersgreen2 sentences2020“We review a trial court’s decision on . . . the admissibility of evidence under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 280 (2006). 2017See In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers , 154 N.H. 275 , 280, 911 A.2d 14 (2006) (explaining that we review a trial court's decision on the management of discovery under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard). | 6 | 7 |
McLaughlin v. Fisher Engineeringgreen2 sentences2021McLaughlin v. Fisher Eng’g, 150 N.H. 195, 197 (2003). 2006We address the testimonies of each witness in turn, applying the correct standard of review: the trial court retains the discretion to admit expert testimony, In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 37 (2002), and its decision will be reviewed under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard, McLaughlin v. Fisher Engineering, 150 N.H. 195, 197 (2003). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Ainsworthgreen2 sentences2017State v. Ainsworth, 151 N.H. 691, 694 (2005). 2017State v. Ainsworth, 151 N.H. 691, 694 (2005). | 4 | 4 |
In Re Connergreen2 sentences2022“We review a trial court’s rulings in this area under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Id. 2010“We review a trial court’s rulings in this area under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Id. ‘We will disturb decisions about . . . motions to continue only if the defendant demonstrates that the decision was clearly unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” State v. Larose, 157 N.H. 28, 39 (2008). | 3 | 14 |
Scott Kukesh & a. v. Beverly P. Mutrie, Individually and as Trustee of the Beverly P. Mutrie Revocable Trustgreen2 sentences2025Kukesh v. Mutrie, 168 N.H. 76, 80 (2015). 2016The trial court found Wolters’s proposal to involve “borderline extortionate terms,” and used the communication as evidence when it found in favor of FUN Trust on its claim that the defendants had committed abuse of process by pursuing the 2012 planning board appeal. ‘We review a trial court’s decisions on the management of discovery and the admissibility of evidence under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Kukesh v. Mutrie, 168 N.H. 76, 80 (2015) (quotation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
In re Stomporgreen2 sentences2015The defendant responds that “the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to conduct discovery in this case,” and that the information sought by the plaintiffs “was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, especially given the trial court’s ... finding that providing housing, cars and financial assistance could not support a finding of reckless, wanton or willful misconduct.” “We review a trial court’s decisions on the management of discovery and the admissibility of evidence under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Petition of Stompor, 165 N.H. 735, 7 2015The defendant responds that “the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to conduct discovery in this case,” and that the information sought by the plaintiffs “was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, especially given the trial court’s ... finding that providing housing, cars and financial assistance could not support a finding of reckless, wanton or willful misconduct.” “We review a trial court’s decisions on the management of discovery and the admissibility of evidence under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Petition of Stompor, 165 N.H. 735, 7 | 3 | 3 |
Van Der Stok v. Van Voorheesgreen2 sentences2018“We review the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard, giving deference to the trial court’s decision.” Van Der Stok v. Van Voorhees, 151 N.H. 679, 683 (2005) (quotation omitted). 3 The plaintiff argues that the defendants were not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs under Harkeem because, he claims, he “prevailed on all the [defendants’] counter claims.” To the contrary, the defendants successfully litigated their claims seeking equitable orders requiring the plaintiff to hire a tree service and to contribute to snow removal 2007“We review the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard, giving deference to the trial court’s decision.” Van Der Stok v. Van Voorhees, 151 N.H. 679, 683 (2005) (quotation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Guaygreen2 sentences2016State v. Guay, 162 N.H. 375, 385 (2011). 2016“We review a trial court’s decisions on the management of discovery and the admissibility of evidence under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Guay, 162 N.H. at 385 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Newmangreen2 sentences2007“Once a defendant has been permitted a threshold level of inquiry, however, the *254 constitutional standard is satisfied, and the judge’s limiting of cross-examination is measured against an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Id. at 290 (quotation and brackets omitted). 2002“Once a defendant has been permitted a threshold level of inquiry, however, the constitutional standard is satisfied, and the judge’s limiting of cross-examination is measured against an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Id. at 290 (quotation and brackets omitted). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Abraham DePaulagreen2 sentences2024See State v. DePaula, 170 N.H. 139, 146 (2017). 2019See State v. DePaula, 170 N.H. 139, 146 (2017). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Peiranogreen2 sentences2020See In the Matter of Peirano & Larsen, 155 N.H. 738, 752 (2007) (reviewing the trial court’s continuance of a restraining order for an unsustainable exercise of discretion). 2020See In the Matter of Peirano & Larsen, 155 N.H. 738, 752 (2007) (reviewing the trial court’s continuance of a restraining order for an unsustainable exercise of discretion). | 2 | 2 |
Provencher v. Buzzell-Plourde Associatesgreen2 sentences2019See Provencher v. Buzzell-Plourde Assoc., 142 N.H. 848, 851 (1998) (noting that we review trial court’s “decision not to hold a hearing for an abuse of discretion”); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295 , 296 3 (2001) (explaining that we refer to abuse of discretion standard as the unsustainable exercise of discretion standard). 2016See Provencher v. Buzzell-Plourde Assoc., 142 N.H. 848, 851 (1998) (noting that we review trial court’s “decision not to hold a hearing for an abuse of discretion”); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining that we refer to abuse of discretion standard as the unsustainable exercise of discretion standard). | 2 | 2 |
Kelleher v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co.green2 sentences2016“We review the trial court’s decisions on the admissibility of evidence under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Kelleher v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., 152 N.H. 813, 832 (2005). 1. 2016Additionally, the association contends that several of the plaintiffs’ arguments are not preserved for appeal. *82 A We first address the plaintiffs’ contention that the trial court erred by admitting evidence produced after the initial close of discovery, including the Horgans’ affidavits and planning board documents. ‘We review the trial court’s decisions on the admissibility of evidence under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Kelleher v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., 152 N.H. 813, 832 (2005). | 2 | 2 |
LAMONTAGNE BUILDERS, INC. v. Brooksgreen2 sentences2013If there is some support in the record for the trial court’s determination, we will uphold it.” LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, 259 (2006) (quotation omitted). 2011LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, 261-62 (2006). | 2 | 2 |
Baykeeper v. NL Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2012See Baykeeper v. NL Industries, Inc., 660 F.3d 686, 690 (3d Cir. 2011) (“We review a district court’s decision to abstain on primary jurisdiction grounds... for abuse of discretion.”); GCB Communications v. U.S. South Communications, 650 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2011) (‘We review a district court’s denial of a request to refer a case to an agency under the primary jurisdiction doctrine for abuse of discretion.”); TON Services, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 493 F.3d 1225, 1239 (10th Cir. 2007) (“This court applies an abuse of discretion standard to the district court’s decisions to invoke the primary j 2012See Baykeeper v. NL Industries, Inc., 660 F.3d 686, 690 (3d Cir.2011) ("We review a district court's decision to abstain on primary jurisdiction grounds ... for abuse of discretion."); GCB Communications v. U.S. South Communications, 650 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2011) ("We review a district court's denial of a request to refer a case to an agency under the primary jurisdiction doctrine for abuse of discretion."); TON Services, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 493 F.3d 1225, 1239 (10th Cir.2007) ("This court applies an abuse of discretion standard to the district court's decisions to invoke the primary ju | 2 | 2 |
Ton Services, Inc. v. Qwest Corp.green2 sentences2012See Baykeeper v. NL Industries, Inc., 660 F.3d 686, 690 (3d Cir. 2011) (“We review a district court’s decision to abstain on primary jurisdiction grounds... for abuse of discretion.”); GCB Communications v. U.S. South Communications, 650 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2011) (‘We review a district court’s denial of a request to refer a case to an agency under the primary jurisdiction doctrine for abuse of discretion.”); TON Services, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 493 F.3d 1225, 1239 (10th Cir. 2007) (“This court applies an abuse of discretion standard to the district court’s decisions to invoke the primary j 2012See Baykeeper v. NL Industries, Inc., 660 F.3d 686, 690 (3d Cir.2011) ("We review a district court's decision to abstain on primary jurisdiction grounds ... for abuse of discretion."); GCB Communications v. U.S. South Communications, 650 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2011) ("We review a district court's denial of a request to refer a case to an agency under the primary jurisdiction doctrine for abuse of discretion."); TON Services, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 493 F.3d 1225, 1239 (10th Cir.2007) ("This court applies an abuse of discretion standard to the district court's decisions to invoke the primary ju | 2 | 2 |
GCB Communications, Inc. v. U.S. South Communications, Inc.green2 sentences2012See Baykeeper v. NL Industries, Inc., 660 F.3d 686, 690 (3d Cir. 2011) (“We review a district court’s decision to abstain on primary jurisdiction grounds... for abuse of discretion.”); GCB Communications v. U.S. South Communications, 650 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2011) (‘We review a district court’s denial of a request to refer a case to an agency under the primary jurisdiction doctrine for abuse of discretion.”); TON Services, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 493 F.3d 1225, 1239 (10th Cir. 2007) (“This court applies an abuse of discretion standard to the district court’s decisions to invoke the primary j 2012See Baykeeper v. NL Industries, Inc., 660 F.3d 686, 690 (3d Cir.2011) ("We review a district court's decision to abstain on primary jurisdiction grounds ... for abuse of discretion."); GCB Communications v. U.S. South Communications, 650 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2011) ("We review a district court's denial of a request to refer a case to an agency under the primary jurisdiction doctrine for abuse of discretion."); TON Services, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 493 F.3d 1225, 1239 (10th Cir.2007) ("This court applies an abuse of discretion standard to the district court's decisions to invoke the primary ju | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lowgreen2 sentences2010See State v. Low, 138 N.H. 86, 88 (1993); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard). 2006State v. Low, 138 N.H. 86, 88 (1993); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard). | 2 | 2 |
In re Juvenile 2002-209green2 sentences2010In re Juvenile 2002-209, 149 N.H. 559, 561 (2003). 2006In re Juvenile 2002-209, 149 N.H. 559, 561 (2003). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Deschenesgreen2 sentences2009State v. Deschenes, 156 N.H. 71, 76 (2007). 2009State u Deschenes, 156 N.H. 71, 76 (2007). | 2 | 2 |
Arcidi v. Town of Ryegreen2 sentences2008Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 704 (2004). 2005“We review the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard, giving deference to the trial court’s decision.” Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 704 (2004). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wellingtongreen2 sentences2007State v. Wellington, 150 N.H. 782, 788 (2004). 2007See State v. Barnes, 150 N.H. 715, 719 (2004) (discovery); State v. Wellington, 150 N.H. 782, 788 (2004) (cross-examination). | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Decostagreen | 2 | 2 |
| Glick v. Naessgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Berrygreen | 2 | 2 |
New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc. v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2017We review a trial court's rulings on the management of discovery under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard. id. 2016Ball Bearings v. Jackson, 158 N.H. 421, 429 (2009). ‘We review a trial court’s rulings on the management of discovery under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Id. | 1 | 3 |
In re Gronvaldtgreen2 sentences2024Id.; Gronvaldt, 150 N.H. at 554 . 2023See id. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2017The trial court “may not completely deny a defendant the right to cross-examine a witness on a proper matter of inquiry,” but “[o]nce a defendant has been permitted a threshold level of inquiry, ... the constitutional standard is satisfied, and the judge’s limiting of cross-examination is measured against an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Id. at 253-54 (quotation omitted). 2017“Thus, when the record reveals that a threshold level of inquiry was allowed, we will uphold the trial court’s decision limiting the scope of further cross-examination unless the defendant demonstrates that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” Id. at 254 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
| United States v. James R. Wagnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Taber v. Town of Westmorelandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ke Tong Chengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Town of Atkinson v. Malborn Realty Trustgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Crockettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Vassargreen | 1 | 1 |
| Leone v. Leonegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Goudreault v. Kleemangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Paul R. Spauldinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Petition of State of New Hampshire (State of New Hampshire v. Michael Lewandowski)green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Hampshire. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Figlioli v. R.J. Moreau Companies
green
2 sentences2019Figlioli, 151 N.H. at 626 . 2019Figlioli, 151 N.H. at 626 . | 3 | 2011–2019 |
In Re Sawyer
green
2 sentences2015“We review a trial court’s rulings in this area under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Id. (quotation omitted). ‘We will disturb decisions about motions to continue only if the [respondent] demonstrates that the decision was clearly unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” Id. (quotation and ellipsis omitted). 2015“We review a trial court’s rulings in this area under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Id. (quotation omitted). ‘We will disturb decisions about motions to continue only if the [respondent] demonstrates that the decision was clearly unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” Id. (quotation and ellipsis omitted). | 2 | 2012–2015 |
State v. Fichera
green
2 sentences2007“Once a defendant has been permitted a threshold level of inquiry ... the constitutional standard is satisfied, and the judge’s limitation of cross-examination thereafter is measured against an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Id. (quotation omitted). 2006“Once a defendant has been permitted a threshold level of inquiry ... the constitutional standard is satisfied, and the judge’s limitation of cross-examination thereafter is measured against an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” Id. | 2 | 2006–2007 |
| Gosselin v. Gosselin green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Gribble green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In Re Martel green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Gagne green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Buzzard v. F.F. Enterprises green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Susan Achille v. George Achille, Jr. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Town green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Jay Kurowski f/n/f Christopher Kurowski v. Town of Chester green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Whitaker v. L.A. Drew, Inc. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Boissy v. Chevion green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Frost v. COM'R, NEW HAMPSHIRE BANKING DEPT. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Laramie v. Stone green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Holmes green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Brum green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Bennett v. Town of Hampstead green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.