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. Rogan 864 A.2d 382 N.H. 2005
    State v. Carlson, 146 N.H. 52, 56 (2001); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Carbo 864 A.2d 344 N.H. 2004
    State v. Pandolfi, 145 N.H. 508, 512 (2000); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Carbone v. Tierney 864 A.2d 308 N.H. 2004
    Id.; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards 861 A.2d 795 N.H. 2004
    Thus, we review the trial court’s ruling under the unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.
  • Carignan v. New Hampshire International Speedway, Inc. 858 A.2d 536 N.H. 2004
    Absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion, we will not reverse the trial court’s decision.
  • State v. Morrill 857 A.2d 1250 N.H. 2004
    id.; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Chace 856 A.2d 1 N.H. 2004
    State v. Laforest, 140 N.H. 286, 289 (1995); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Roldan 855 A.2d 445 N.H. 2004
    To show that the trial court’s decision is not sustainable, the defendant must demonstrate that the ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.
  • State v. Hearns 855 A.2d 549 N.H. 2004
    Id.; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • In re Hennessey-Martin 855 A.2d 409 N.H. 2004
    Wheaton-Dunberger v. Dunberger, 137 N.H. 504, 507 (1993); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Zwicker 855 A.2d 415 N.H. 2004
    Petition of Brosseau, 146 N.H. 339, 341 (2001); State v. Bertrand, 133 N.H. 843, 855 (1991); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Smalley 855 A.2d 401 N.H. 2004
    State v. Brewster, 147 N.H. 645, 648 (2002); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Ellsworth 855 A.2d 474 N.H. 2004
    Id.; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Chesbrough 849 A.2d 141 N.H. 2004
    State v. Lavallee, 115 N.H. 540, 541 (1975); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Summa Humma Entersprises, LLC v. Town of Tilton 849 A.2d 146 N.H. 2004
    Star Vector Corp., 146 N.H. at 492; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Porter v. City of Manchester 849 A.2d 103 N.H. 2004
    Id.; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • In re Goffstown Education Support Staff 846 A.2d 1179 N.H. 2004
    Petition of Bailey, 146 N.H. 197, 198 (2001); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Wellington 846 A.2d 1171 N.H. 2004
    State v. Stow, 136 N.H. 598, 605 (1993); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001); Campbell, 127 N.H. at 117.
  • Bennett v. ITT Hartford Group, Inc. 846 A.2d 560 N.H. 2004
    Keshishian v. CMC Radiologists, 142 N.H. 168, 181 (1997); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Arcidi v. Town of Rye 846 A.2d 535 N.H. 2004
    Glick v. Naess, 143 N.H. 172, 175 (1998); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance v. Crete 846 A.2d 521 N.H. 2004
    Keshishian v. CMC Radiologists, 142 N.H. 168, 176 (1997); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Fox 843 A.2d 309 N.H. 2004
    State v. Spaulding, 147 N.H. 583, 589 (2002); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining the unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Gutbier v. Hannaford Bros. 842 A.2d 64 N.H. 2004
    Id.; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Scognamiglio 842 A.2d 109 N.H. 2004
    “A trial court’s denial of a mistrial will not be overturned absent an [unsustainable exercise] of discretion, due to the trial court’s unique ability to gauge the reaction of the jury to any potentially prejudicial information.” State v. Giordano, 138 N.H. 90, 94 (1993); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • In re Giacomini 842 A.2d 70 N.H. 2004
    Enterprises, Inc., 120 N.H. 707, 711-12 (1980); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • In re Haller 839 A.2d 18 N.H. 2003
    In the Matter of Gilmore & Gilmore, 148 N.H. 111, 112 (2002) (review of child support rulings); see also Massicotte v. Matuzas, 143 N.H. 711, 712 (1999) (review of equitable orders); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Dillman v. New Hampshire College 838 A.2d 1274 N.H. 2003
    Co. of N.H., 129 N.H. 621, 625 (1987); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Poole 837 A.2d 307 N.H. 2003
    id.; State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • LaMontagne Builders, Inc. v. Bowman Brook Purchase Group 837 A.2d 301 N.H. 2003
    Glick v. Naess, 143 N.H. 172, 175 (1998); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • In re Pfeuffer 837 A.2d 311 N.H. 2003
    Tomasko, 145 N.H. at 172; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Wood 836 A.2d 771 N.H. 2003
    State v. DeCosta, 146 N.H. 405, 415 (2001); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Grenier v. Barclay Square Commercial Condominium Owners' Ass'n 834 A.2d 238 N.H. 2003
    “We will not overturn the trial court’s decision concerning attorney’s fees absent an [unsustainable exercise] of discretion.” Business Publications v. Stephen, 140 N.H. 145, 147 (1995) (quotation omitted); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion *116 standard).
  • Babb v. Clark 834 A.2d 364 N.H. 2003
    at 97; see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • In re Holmes 834 A.2d 384 N.H. 2003
    State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Gonzalez 834 A.2d 354 N.H. 2003
    We review the ruling to determine whether it was an unsustainable exercise of discretion.
  • State v. Mason 834 A.2d 339 N.H. 2003
    A trial court’s decision will be found unsustainable if the defendant demonstrates that the ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.
  • State v. Knapp 834 A.2d 394 N.H. 2003
    v. Town of Bethlehem, 146 N.H. 348, 355 (2001); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Conservation Law Foundation v. New Hampshire Wetlands Council 834 A.2d 193 N.H. 2003
    Peter Christian’s v. Town of Hanover, 132 N.H. 677, 683-84 (1990); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).
  • Cook v. Sullivan 829 A.2d 1059 N.H. 2003
    id.; see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Chapman 829 A.2d 1083 N.H. 2003
    Weir, 138 N.H. at 673-74 (ellipsis and quotations omitted); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Knapp v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. 829 A.2d 1052 N.H. 2003
    To show an unsustainable exercise of discretion, the defendants must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of their case.
  • Donnelly v. Eastman 826 A.2d 586 N.H. 2003
    id.; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Plch 826 A.2d 534 N.H. 2003
    State v. Berrocales, 140 N.H. 647, 649 (1996); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Van Dyck 827 A.2d 192 N.H. 2003
    McElroy v. Gaffney, 129 N.H. 382, 390 (1987); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. DiNapoli 823 A.2d 744 N.H. 2003
    State v. Bashaw, 147 N.H. 238, 241 (2001); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Whittey 821 A.2d 1086 N.H. 2003
    State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110, 117 (1997); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Gamester 821 A.2d 1076 N.H. 2003
    To show that the trial court’s exercise of discretion is unsustainable, the defendant must show that the decision was clearly unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.
  • State v. Lamprey 821 A.2d 1080 N.H. 2003
    State v. Berry, 148 N.H. 88, 93 (2002); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining the unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Madeja v. MPB Corp. 821 A.2d 1034 N.H. 2003
    Morrill v. Tilney, 128 N.H. 773, 779 (1986); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • In re Breault 821 A.2d 1118 N.H. 2003
    Butterick v. Butterick, 127 N.H. 731, 736 (1986) (quotations omitted); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).