Cited by

When determining whether an evidentiary ruling constitutes a proper exercise of judicial discretion, we consider whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary decision made.

“When we determine whether a ruling made by a judge is a proper exercise of judicial discretion, we are really deciding whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001); see, e.g., Brooks v. Allen, 168 N.H. 707, 711 (2016) (applying same standard of review to award of equitable relief).

Brigham v. Hudson Motors, Inc., 118 N.H. 590, 593 (1978); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).

“When we determine whether a ruling made by a judge is a proper exercise of judicial discretion, we are really deciding whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made.

State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (describing unsustainable exercise of discretion standard of review).

State v. Crockett, 116 N.H. 324, 324-25 (1976) (reviewing the trial court’s decision to allow the State to amend a complaint for “an abuse of discretion”); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining the “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard).

Under this standard, the defendant must demonstrate that the trial court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.

Under this standard, the defendant must show that the Court’s decision was “clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).

“When we determine whether a ruling made by a judge is a proper exercise of judicial discretion, we are really deciding whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).

Spenard, 167 N.H. at 3; Murray, 149 N.H. at 267; State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

Id.; see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

Although these cases apply an abuse-of- discretion standard, because the term “abuse of discretion” may carry an inaccurate connotation, we refer to it as the “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard.

v. Moulton Constr., 141 N.H. 789, 791 (1997); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).

“When we determine whether a ruling made by a judge is a proper exercise of judicial discretion, we are really deciding whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).

State v. Dukette, 127 N.H. 540, 543-44 (1986) (reviewing trial court’s denial of defendant’s request to allow counsel to withdraw from the case under abuse of discretion standard); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining that we now refer to abuse of discretion standard as unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

at 654 (explaining that “[w]e will uphold a trial court’s decision on a motion for reconsideration absent an [unsustainable exercise] of discretion” (quotation omitted)); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard of review).

Under this standard, the defendant must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of her case.

id.; see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

Brito v. Ryan, 151 N.H. 635, 637 (2005); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).

To establish that the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion, the petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court’s rulings were clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of her case.

In determining whether a trial court ruling is an unsustainable exercise of discretion, we consider “whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).

B. Appellate Arguments We review the trial court’s sentencing decision under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

Thus, in reviewing the superior court’s decision, we determine whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made.

at 16; State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001); see also Fernandez, 909 F.3d at 363 (explaining that because a trial court “may exercise its discretion to order the return of a child notwithstanding finding that an exception to return is met, [the appellate court] review[s] the determination by the [trial] court to return or not to return a child for a

Cir. 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).

DeButts v. LaRoche, 142 N.H. 845, 847 (1998); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

To show that the court’s ruling is not sustainable, the defendant must demonstrate that the decision “was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (quotation omitted).

When determining whether a trial court ruling is an unsustainable exercise of discretion, we consider “whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).

To show that the trial court’s decision is not sustainable, the respondent must demonstrate that the court’s rulings were clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.

We review a trial court’s sentencing decision under the unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

We conclude that the trial court’s determination that the CDC tables “provide a more reliable picture of the average life expectancy” than the studies offered by the defendant was not clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of the defendant’s case.

Under this standard, the defendant must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.

To establish an unsustainable exercised of discretion, NWA must demonstrate that the ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of its case.

In the Matter of Geraghty & Geraghty, 169 N.H. 404, 419 (2016); R. J. Berke & Co. v. J. P. Griffin, Inc., 118 N.H. 449, 452 (1978); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

State v. Comtois, 122 N.H. 1173, 1175 (1982); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (to establish that trial court’s decision is unsustainable defendant must demonstrate that ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case).

Granting a motion for a new trial is within the discretion of the trial court, see Armstrong v. Armstrong, 123 N.H. 291, 293 (1983), and thus we review the court’s decision for an unsustainable exercise of discretion, see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).

Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. at 630; see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

To show that the trial court’s decision is not sustainable, the husband must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.

To establish that the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion, the plaintiff must demonstrate that its ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.

Assuming without deciding that the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s second request for leave to file an interlocutory appeal from ruling constitutes an appealable order, we review the trial court’s denial under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

Trial courts have broad, but not unlimited, discretion in determining the evidence to be considered at a sentencing hearing, State v. Willey, 163 N.H. 532, 541 (2012), and we generally review their sentencing decisions using the familiar unsustainable exercise of discretion standard, State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).2 “To show that the trial court’s decision [was] not sustainable, the defendant must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejud

In 3 determining whether a trial court ruling is an unsustainable exercise of discretion, we consider “whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).

In doing so, the question is “whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

To prevail, the father must demonstrate that the trial court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.

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).

In determining whether a trial court ruling is an unsustainable exercise of discretion, we consider “whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).

State v. Kuchman, 168 N.H. 779, 787 (2016); see State 2 v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining that to show that the trial court’s decision is not sustainable, “the defendant must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case” (quotation omitted)).

Under this standard, the respondent must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.