Cited by

‘We will uphold the decision of the trial court with regard to the issuance of an injunction absent an error of law, [unsustainable exercise] of discretion, or clearly erroneous findings of fact.” Id.; 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 defendant must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.

State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (“Because the ‘abuse of discretion’ standard may carry an inaccurate connotation, we will hereafter refer to it as the ‘unsustainable exercise of discretion’ standard.”).

“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.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (quotation omitted).

State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001); see also Sampson, 486 F.3d at 42 (when considering a defendant’s challenges to an evidentiary ruling rendered in a capital sentencing proceeding under the FDPA, appellate court “review[s] adequately preserved objections to rulings admitting or excluding evidence for abuse of discretion”).

State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (to establish that trial court ruling is not sustainable, defendant must demonstrate that the ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case).

State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard); see also Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 37, comment (d) (1987) (trial court’s decision to remove trustee if continued appointment would be detrimental to interests of beneficiary subject to review for abuse of discretion).

State v. Meister, 125 N.H. 435, 438 (1984); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion).

& J.M., 153 N.H. 82, 93 (2005) (plurality opinion); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining *314 unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

Woodard, 291 F.3d at 106 (appellate court reviews denial of request for substitute counsel for abuse of discretion); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

v. Feliciano, 816 N.E.2d 1205, 1209 (Mass. 2004) (where defendant makes sufficient showing to obtain in camera review of privileged records by trial court, appellate court reviews trial court decision to withhold some records from disclosure under abuse of discretion standard); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

“Although a sentencing judge has broad discretion to choose the sources and types of evidence upon which to rely in imposing sentence, that discretion is not unlimited.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 295-96 (2001).

“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.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (quotation omitted).

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 jurisdiction doctrine and to either stay or dismiss the action without prejudice."); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296, 787 A.2d 175 (2001).

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

“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.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (quotation omitted).

ecause of concerns about the source of funding.” The *796 defendant argues that this amounts to reversible error, for we have said that “the fact that RSA 604-A-.6 funds are in limited supply is not an appropriate reason for denying access and reliance upon it, without more, would constitute an [unsustainable exercise of discretion].” State v. Stow, 136 N.H. 598, 605 (1993); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

State v. Saucier, 128 N.H. 291, 295-96 (1986); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

Babb v. Clark, 150 N.H. 98, 100 (2003); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

The trial judge is best suited to make this factual determination and we, therefore, review the second part for an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

Fortin v. Manchester Housing Auth., 133 N.H. 154, 160 (1990); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion).

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

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

The trial court’s decision is not sustainable if it is “clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of [Buzzard’s] case.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (quotation omitted).

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

Tomasko, 145 N.H. at 172; see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

Corp. v. Town of Hanover, 142 N.H. 812, 813 (1998); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard).

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

*462 To show that the trial court’s decision is not sustainable, Sabinson must demonstrate that it was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of her case.

State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (to show that trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion, appellants must demonstrate ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of their case).

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

769, 782 (11th Cir. 2005); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard).

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).

“Where the record supports the court’s determination of competency, we will not disturb that determination absent an [unsustainable exercise] of discretion.” State v. Aikens, 135 N.H. 569, 571 (1992) (quotation omitted); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

Under this standard, we review only whether “the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).

Because the superior court’s decision to adopt the federal court’s order was discretionary, we review it under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

*178 Because Driscoll’s conviction for receiving stolen property did not involve an act of dishonesty or false statement within the meaning of Rule 609(a)(2), we find no unsustainable exercise of discretion.

“To show that the trial court’s decision is not *146 sustainable, the [party] must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (quotation omitted).

State n Dewitt, 143 N.H. 24, 27 (1998); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

To show that the trial court’s decision is unsustainable, the defendant must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.

“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.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (quotation omitted).

We fail to see any unfair prejudice to the wife by the trial court’s action, and she has consequently failed to meet her burden of showing that the trial court’s decision was an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

Bonneville v. Bonneville, 142 N.H. 435, 437-38 (1997); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

To show that the trial court’s decision was unsustainable, the defendant must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.

Automated Housing Corp., 121 N.H. at 180; see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

State v. Cooper, 146 N.H. 140, 141 (2001); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

at 355-56; State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

Under this standard, we review only whether “the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made.” State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).

v. Zimmerman, 804 N.E.2d 336, 340 (Mass. 2004); Annotation, Propriety, Under State Statute or Court Rule, of Substituting State Trial Juror With Alternate After Case Has Been Submitted to Jury, 88 A.L.R.4TH 711, § 10(a) (1991 & Supp. 2007); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).