DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Lambert, 787 A.2d 175.

309 citing documents.

  • State v. Solomon 943 A.2d 819 N.H. 2008
    Paquin, 140 N.H. at 528; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Burgess 943 A.2d 727 N.H. 2008
    “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).
  • Poland v. Twomey 937 A.2d 934 N.H. 2007
    id.; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • In Re Costa 937 A.2d 288 N.H. 2007
    DeButts v. LaRoche, 142 N.H. 845, 847 (1998) (failure to exercise discretion constitutes an abuse of discretion); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Appeal of Omega Entertainment, LLC 934 A.2d 591 N.H. 2007
    State v. Cox, 133 N.H. 261, 265-66 (1990) (trial court’s denial of defendant’s request that it take judicial notice reviewed for unsustainable exercise of discretion); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard).
  • In Re Conner 931 A.2d 1252 N.H. 2007
    Murray, 149 N.H. at 267; State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. O'MALEY 932 A.2d 1 N.H. 2007
    Under this standard of review, 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).
  • Petition of Bayview Crematory, LLC 930 A.2d 1190 N.H. 2007
    We concur with the First Circuit’s reasoning and adopt this standard, with the caveat that we apply the standard of “unsustainable exercise of discretion” rather than “abuse of discretion.” See State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard).
  • In Re Peirano 930 A.2d 1165 N.H. 2007
    Given the unsustainable exercise of discretion standard we must apply, the appealing party must show that the trial court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his or her case.
  • State v. Sharkey 927 A.2d 519 N.H. 2007
    Id.; see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining “unsustainable exercise of discretion”).
  • In Re Maynard 930 A.2d 1195 N.H. 2007
    v. Moulton Constr., Inc., 141 N.H. 789, 791 (1997) (quotation omitted); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Petition of Chase Home for Children 926 A.2d 287 N.H. 2007
    at 654; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining the “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard).
  • State v. Gagnon 924 A.2d 384 N.H. 2007
    State v. Cox, 133 N.H. 261, 266 (1990); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard).
  • In Re Christopher K. 923 A.2d 187 N.H. 2007
    McDill v. Environamics Corp., 144 N.H. 635, 640 (2000); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Stewart 921 A.2d 933 N.H. 2007
    The trial court therefore unsustainably exercised its discretion in answering the jury’s question.
  • NH DEPT. OF ENV. SERVICES v. Mottolo 917 A.2d 1277 N.H. 2007
    Id.; see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296, 787 A.2d 175 (2001) (explaining "unsustainable exercise of discretion").
  • In Re Choy 919 A.2d 801 N.H. 2007
    “This means that we review only “whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made,”’ In the Matter of Lockaby & Smith, 148 N.H. 462, 465 (2002) (quoting State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001)), and we will not disturb the trial court’s determination if it could reasonably be made, Matthews v. Matthews, 142 N.H. 733, 735 (1998).
  • Bendetson v. Killarney, Inc. 913 A.2d 756 N.H. 2006
    When we determine whether a ruling made by the trial court is a proper exercise of judicial discretion, we are really deciding whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the court’s discretionary judgment.
  • Martinez v. Nicholson 911 A.2d 30 N.H. 2006
    Taylor-Boren v. Isaac, 143 N.H. 261, 266 (1998); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard).
  • Bel Air Associates v. New Hampshire Department of Health & Human Services 910 A.2d 1232 N.H. 2006
    Co. v. Crete, 150 N.H. at 678; see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Stewart v. Bader 907 A.2d 931 N.H. 2006
    State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • In re Birmingham 904 A.2d 636 N.H. 2006
    Brito v. Ryan, 151 N.H. 635, 637 (2005); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion).
  • Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Davey 904 A.2d 652 N.H. 2006
    v. Municipality of Conway, 144 N.H. 642, 654-55 (2000); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • G2003B, LLC v. Town of Weare 903 A.2d 1007 N.H. 2006
    State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining the unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Gosselin v. New Hampshire Department of Corrections 907 A.2d 944 N.H. 2006
    Petition of Support Enforcement Officers, 147 N.H. 1, 4 (2001); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Abram 903 A.2d 1042 N.H. 2006
    State v. Weeks, 140 N.H. 463, 467 (1995); see also State v. Dewitt, 143 N.H. 24, 26-27 (1998); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Fichera 903 A.2d 1030 N.H. 2006
    v. Hall, 137 N.H. 397, 400 (1993); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Carignan v. Wheeler 898 A.2d 1011 N.H. 2006
    State v. Low, 138 N.H. 86, 88 (1993); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Cochrane 897 A.2d 952 N.H. 2006
    We review the trial court’s ruling for an unsustainable exercise of discretion.
  • In re Harvey 899 A.2d 258 N.H. 2006
    Tullgren v. Phil Lamoy Realty Corp., 125 N.H. 604, 609 (1984); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Theodosopoulos 893 A.2d 712 N.H. 2006
    Id.; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001)(explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Blomquist 891 A.2d 469 N.H. 2006
    State v. Sundstrom, 131 N.H. 203, 208 (1988); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Gulf Insurance v. AMSCO, Inc. 889 A.2d 1040 N.H. 2005
    Because the trial court retains discretion to admit expert testimony, In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 37 (2002), we review its decision in order to determine whether it unsustainably exercised its discretion, see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Kelleher v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. 891 A.2d 477 N.H. 2005
    “We will uphold the trial court’s decision on a motion to set aside the verdict unless the decision was made without evidence or the court committed an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” Id.; see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Elementis Chemical, Inc. 887 A.2d 1133 N.H. 2005
    ‘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).
  • Broom v. Continental Casualty Co. 887 A.2d 1128 N.H. 2005
    id.; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • In re Arvenitis 886 A.2d 1025 N.H. 2005
    Laflamme v. Laflamme, 144 N.H. *655 524, 527 (1999); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Sanchez 883 A.2d 292 N.H. 2005
    State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • O'Donnell v. HCA Health Services of New Hampshire, Inc. 883 A.2d 319 N.H. 2005
    To show an unsustainable exercise of discretion, the defendant must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.
  • State v. Gero 877 A.2d 201 N.H. 2005
    State v. Hebert, 122 N.H. 1089, 1090 (1982); cf. State v. Lambert 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Yoder v. Town of Middleton 876 A.2d 216 N.H. 2005
    In re Antonio W., 147 N.H. 408, 414 (2002); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Littlefield 876 A.2d 712 N.H. 2005
    A trial judge has broad discretion to choose the sources and types of evidence upon which to rely in imposing sentence, and we review that sentencing decision under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.
  • DHB, Inc. v. Town of Pembroke 876 A.2d 206 N.H. 2005
    the probabilities, on the evidence before it, that said decision is unreasonable) with Appeal of McKerley Health Facilities, 145 N.H. 164, 166 (2000) (reviewing court may reverse where administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or authority, otherwise acted illegally, exercised an unsustainable level of discretion, or acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or capriciously); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Fernandez 876 A.2d 221 N.H. 2005
    State v. Hilton, 144 N.H. 470, 473 (1999); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).
  • State v. Place 876 A.2d 173 N.H. 2005
    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. LeCouffe 872 A.2d 773 N.H. 2005
    State v. Timmons, 145 N.H. 149, 151 (2000); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Jackson v. Morse 871 A.2d 47 N.H. 2005
    Town of Littleton v. Taylor, 138 N.H. 419, 424 (1994); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Gubitosi 868 A.2d 264 N.H. 2005
    State v. Bain 145 N.H. 367, 372 (2000); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Figlioli v. R.J. Moreau Companies 866 A.2d 962 N.H. 2005
    Hosp., 147 N.H. 286, 289-90 (2001); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Brito v. Ryan 864 A.2d 378 N.H. 2005
    Jamieson, Inc. v. Copeland Coating Co., 126 N.H. 101, 102 (1985); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion).