Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
45 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2024 2 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). 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 | 4 | 4 |
Glick v. Naessgreen2 sentences2001“In reviewing a superior court award of attorney’s fees, we apply an abuse of discretion standard, giving tremendous deference to the court’s decision.” Glick v. Naess, 143 N.H. 172, 175 (1998) (quotation, citation and brackets omitted). 2001“To constitute abuse, reversible on appeal, the discretion must have been exercised for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable to the prejudice of the objecting party.” Id. (quotation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Plantegreen2 sentences2000Accordingly, “we will consider his arguments] under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id. 1999Because “the constitutional dimension of the defendant’s argument was not called to the trial court’s attention, nor . . . raised in the notice of appeal[,] . . . we . . . consider his argument under an abuse of discretion standard . . . .” State v. Plante, 134 N.H. 456, 459 , 594 A.2d 1279, 1282 (1991). | 2 | 4 |
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 |
White v. Francoeurgreen2 sentences1998In reviewing a superior court award of attorney’s fees, we apply an abuse of discretion standard, White v. Francoeur, 138 N.H. 307, 310 , 638 A.2d 1250, 1252 (1994), “giv[ing] tremendous deference to [the] court[’s] decision.” Casico v. City of Manchester, 142 N.H. 312, 318 , 702 A.2d 302, 305 (1997) (quotation omitted). 1998In reviewing a superior court award of attorney’s fees, we apply an abuse of discretion standard, White v. Francoeur, 138 N.H. 307, 310 , 638 A.2d 1250, 1252 (1994), “giv[ing] tremendous deference to [the] court[’s] decision.” Casico v. City of Manchester, 142 N.H. 312, 318 , 702 A.2d 302, 305 (1997) (quotation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hainesgreen2 sentences2000Under this standard, “[t]he defendant must show that the trial court’s ruling[s were] clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” State v. Haines, 142 N.H. 692, 698 , 709 A.2d 762, 766 (1998) (quotation omitted). 2000Under this standard, “[t]he defendant must show that the trial court’s ruling[s were] clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” State v. Haines, 142 N.H. 692, 698 , 709 A.2d 762, 766 (1998) (quotation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Barton v. Hayesgreen2 sentences1997See Barton v. Hayes, 141 N.H. 118, 120 , 677 A.2d 694, 695 (1996). 1997See Barton v. Hayes, 141 N.H. 118, 120 , 677 A.2d 694, 695 (1996). | 2 | 2 |
Town of Swanzey v. Liebelergreen2 sentences2001“In applying the abuse of discretion standard, we look for some support in the record for the trial court’s decision, and keep in mind the tremendous deference given to a lower court’s decision on attorney’s fees.” Town of Swanzey v. Liebeler, 140 N.H. 760, 765 (1996) (quotations omitted). 1998“In applying the abuse of discretion standard, we look for some support in the record for the trial court’s decision, and keep in mind the tremendous deference given to a lower court’s decision on attorney’s fees.” Id. (quotations and citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Linskygreen1 sentence2024See State v. Linsky, 117 N.H. 866, 883 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Browning Manufacturing v. Mims (In Re Coastal Plains, Inc.)green1 sentence2018See, e.g. , In re Coastal Plains, Inc. , 179 F.3d 197 , 205 (5th Cir. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Serge Edouardgreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1337 ; Nur, 869 N.E.2d at 480 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodruffgreen2 sentences2012Review of application of discretionary sentencing factors is under an abuse of discretion standard.” (citation omitted; emphasis added)); State v. Woodruff, 151 P.3d 1086, 1087 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (‘We review constitutional challenges to a trial court’s sentencing decision de novo.”). 2012Review of application of discretionary sentencing factors is under an abuse of discretion standard." (citation omitted; emphasis added)); State v. Woodruff, 137 Wash.App. 127 , 151 P.3d 1086, 1087 (2007) ("We review constitutional challenges to a trial court's sentencing decision de novo. "). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodruffgreen1 sentence2012Review of application of discretionary sentencing factors is under an abuse of discretion standard." (citation omitted; emphasis added)); State v. Woodruff, 137 Wash.App. 127 , 151 P.3d 1086, 1087 (2007) ("We review constitutional challenges to a trial court's sentencing decision de novo. "). | 1 | 1 |
Tardiff v. Knox Countygreen1 sentence2007See McKenna v. First Horizon Home Loan Corp., 475 F.3d 418, 422 (1st Cir. 2007); In re Polymedica Corp. Securities Litigation, 432 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2005); Tardiff v. Knox County, 365 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Bowe v. Polymedica Corp.green1 sentence2007See McKenna v. First Horizon Home Loan Corp., 475 F.3d 418, 422 (1st Cir. 2007); In re Polymedica Corp. Securities Litigation, 432 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2005); Tardiff v. Knox County, 365 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
McKenna v. First Horizon Home Loan Corp.green1 sentence2007See McKenna v. First Horizon Home Loan Corp., 475 F.3d 418, 422 (1st Cir. 2007); In re Polymedica Corp. Securities Litigation, 432 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2005); Tardiff v. Knox County, 365 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Beaver v. Kingmangreen1 sentence2006Tennessee Assoc. of Health Maintenance Organizations, Inc. v. Grier, 262 F.3d 559, 564 (6th Cir. 2001); Durrett v. Housing Authority of the City of Providence, 896 F.2d 600, 604-05 (1st Cir. 1990); United States v. Hooker Chemical & Plastics Corp., 776 F.2d 410, 411 (2d Cir. 1985); Long v. State, 807 A.2d 1, 9 (Md. 2002); Boillet v. Conyer, 826 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo. App. 1992); Beaver v. Kingman, 785 P.2d 998, 1001 (Kan. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Hooker Chemical & Plastics Corp.green1 sentence2006Tennessee Assoc. of Health Maintenance Organizations, Inc. v. Grier, 262 F.3d 559, 564 (6th Cir. 2001); Durrett v. Housing Authority of the City of Providence, 896 F.2d 600, 604-05 (1st Cir. 1990); United States v. Hooker Chemical & Plastics Corp., 776 F.2d 410, 411 (2d Cir. 1985); Long v. State, 807 A.2d 1, 9 (Md. 2002); Boillet v. Conyer, 826 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo. App. 1992); Beaver v. Kingman, 785 P.2d 998, 1001 (Kan. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Boillet v. Conyergreen1 sentence2006Tennessee Assoc. of Health Maintenance Organizations, Inc. v. Grier, 262 F.3d 559, 564 (6th Cir. 2001); Durrett v. Housing Authority of the City of Providence, 896 F.2d 600, 604-05 (1st Cir. 1990); United States v. Hooker Chemical & Plastics Corp., 776 F.2d 410, 411 (2d Cir. 1985); Long v. State, 807 A.2d 1, 9 (Md. 2002); Boillet v. Conyer, 826 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo. App. 1992); Beaver v. Kingman, 785 P.2d 998, 1001 (Kan. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Ruth Durrett v. Housing Authority of the City of Providencegreen1 sentence2006Tennessee Assoc. of Health Maintenance Organizations, Inc. v. Grier, 262 F.3d 559, 564 (6th Cir. 2001); Durrett v. Housing Authority of the City of Providence, 896 F.2d 600, 604-05 (1st Cir. 1990); United States v. Hooker Chemical & Plastics Corp., 776 F.2d 410, 411 (2d Cir. 1985); Long v. State, 807 A.2d 1, 9 (Md. 2002); Boillet v. Conyer, 826 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo. App. 1992); Beaver v. Kingman, 785 P.2d 998, 1001 (Kan. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 774608green1 sentence2006Tennessee Assoc. of Health Maintenance Organizations, Inc. v. Grier, 262 F.3d 559, 564 (6th Cir. 2001); Durrett v. Housing Authority of the City of Providence, 896 F.2d 600, 604-05 (1st Cir. 1990); United States v. Hooker Chemical & Plastics Corp., 776 F.2d 410, 411 (2d Cir. 1985); Long v. State, 807 A.2d 1, 9 (Md. 2002); Boillet v. Conyer, 826 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo. App. 1992); Beaver v. Kingman, 785 P.2d 998, 1001 (Kan. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Long v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Tennessee Assoc. of Health Maintenance Organizations, Inc. v. Grier, 262 F.3d 559, 564 (6th Cir. 2001); Durrett v. Housing Authority of the City of Providence, 896 F.2d 600, 604-05 (1st Cir. 1990); United States v. Hooker Chemical & Plastics Corp., 776 F.2d 410, 411 (2d Cir. 1985); Long v. State, 807 A.2d 1, 9 (Md. 2002); Boillet v. Conyer, 826 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo. App. 1992); Beaver v. Kingman, 785 P.2d 998, 1001 (Kan. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ellisongreen1 sentence2001See State v. Ellison, 135 N.H. 1, 4 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Douglas v. Douglasgreen1 sentence2001See Douglas v. Douglas, 143 N.H. 419, 422 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
Laramie v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.green2 sentences2000Laramie v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 142 N.H. 653, 656 , 707 A.2d 443, 445 (1998). 2000Laramie v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 142 N.H. 653, 656 , 707 A.2d 443, 445 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
Simpson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2000Simpson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 N.H. 571, 576 , 744 A.2d 625, 629 (1999). 2000Simpson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 N.H. 571, 576 , 744 A.2d 625, 629 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Geiss v. Bourassagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. MacRaegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dubois v. Duboisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rhoadesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Casico, Inc. v. City of Manchestergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baker v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ellsworthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Daigle v. City of Portsmouthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Voorheesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Decker v. Deckergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cartergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Seymour v. Collinsgreen1 sentence2018But see Seymour v. Collins , 396 Ill.Dec. 135 , 39 N.E.3d 961 , 975-76 (2015) (noting state and federal courts are split regarding standard of review applicable to judicial estoppel). *1196 **580 Courts that apply an abuse of discretion standard do so in part because judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nur v. State
green
1 sentence2014See, e.g., Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1337 ; Nur, 869 N.E.2d at 480 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Finerty v. National Labor Relations Board green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Marti green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Adams v. Bradshaw green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Brown green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Indian Head National Bank v. Corey green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.