Cited by

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

309 citing documents.

Mooney v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance 822 A.2d 567 N.H. 2003
Gordon v. Tafe, 121 N.H. 250, 252 (1981); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Higgins 821 A.2d 964 N.H. 2003
The trial court retains the discretionary authority to rule on pretrial discovery matters, even where a defendant’s constitutional rights are implicated, see id.; Spaulding, 147 N.H. at 589, and thus we review the trial court’s pretrial discovery ruling for an unsustainable exercise of discretion, see Ellsworth, 136 N.H. at 117; State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Ramos 821 A.2d 979 N.H. 2003
id.; see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
Murray v. Developmental Services of Sullivan County, Inc. 818 A.2d 302 N.H. 2003
*269 State v. Boetti, 142 N.H. 255, 261 (1997); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Pelletier 818 A.2d 292 N.H. 2003
That determination is an issue of fact for the trial court, see id., and we will not reverse its evidentiary ruling absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion, State v. Young, 144 N.H. 477, 482 (1999); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard).
In re Estate of King 817 A.2d 297 N.H. 2003
Town of Weave v. Paquette, 121 N.H. 653, 659 (1981); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 297 (2001).
In re Feddersen 816 A.2d 1033 N.H. 2003
Butterick v. Butterick, 127 N.H. 731, 736 (1986) (quotation omitted); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
McIntire v. Lee 816 A.2d 993 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.
State v. Stott 816 A.2d 1018 N.H. 2003
To prevail on appeal, the defendant must show the trial court’s rulings were clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.
State v. Ramos 818 A.2d 1228 N.H. 2003
State v. Manna, 130 N.H. 306, 309 (1988); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard).
Appeal of McDonough 816 A.2d 1022 N.H. 2003
Petition of Hoyt, 143 N.H. 533, 534 (1999); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Dupont 816 A.2d 954 N.H. 2003
State v. Collins, 138 N.H. 217, 219 (1994); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard).
Whitaker v. L.A. Drew, Inc. 816 A.2d 984 N.H. 2003
State v. Cromlish, 146 N.H. 277, 280-81 (2001); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Watkins 813 A.2d 435 N.H. 2002
“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. Dahood 814 A.2d 159 N.H. 2002
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. Gordon 815 A.2d 392 N.H. 2002
Id.; see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Hall 813 A.2d 501 N.H. 2002
State v. Pandolfi, 145 N.H. 508, 512 (2000); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
Baker Valley Lumber, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. 813 A.2d 409 N.H. 2002
State v. Santamaria, 145 N.H. 138, 143 (2000); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
MacDonald v. B.M.D. Golf Associates, Inc. 813 A.2d 488 N.H. 2002
To show an unsustainable exercise of discretion, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of their ease.
State v. Glodgett 813 A.2d 444 N.H. 2002
id.; see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Ke Tong Chen 813 A.2d 424 N.H. 2002
State v. Laurent, 144 N.H. 517, 522 (1999); see also Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Sargent 813 A.2d 402 N.H. 2002
Because each of these *573 issues deals with either the admissibility or the discoverability of evidence, we review the trial court’s rulings to decide only whether they constitute unsustainable exercises of discretion.
In re White 809 A.2d 1286 N.H. 2002
“Absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion, we will not overturn the trial court’s decision on property distribution.” In the Matter of Valence and Valence, 147 N.H. 663, 666 *533 (2002); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
Citizens of East Derry Fire Precinct v. Town of Derry 810 A.2d 45 N.H. 2002
In re Doe, 126 N.H. 719, 722-28 (1985) (quotation and ellipsis omitted); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
In re Lurvey 809 A.2d 783 N.H. 2002
In the Matter of Fowler and Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 519 (2000); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
American Express Trave v. Moskoff 807 A.2d 1250 N.H. 2002
RSA 524:6-a; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
In re Lockaby 808 A.2d 832 N.H. 2002
Tomasko, 145 N.H. at 172; see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Demeritt 813 A.2d 393 N.H. 2002
State v. Francoeur, 146 N.H. 83, 86 (2001); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
Kravitz v. Beech Hill Hospital, L.L.C. 808 A.2d 34 N.H. 2002
at 356; see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
In re Haines 808 A.2d 72 N.H. 2002
Therefore, a trial court order compelling pre-trial discovery will not be disturbed absent an unsustainable exercise of judicial discretion.
Wong v. Ekberg 807 A.2d 1266 N.H. 2002
Matthews v. Matthews, 142 N.H. 733, 735-36 (1998); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
In re State ex rel. Reitenour 807 A.2d 1259 N.H. 2002
State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. D'Amelio 808 A.2d 91 N.H. 2002
State v. Philbrook, 138 N.H. 601, 603 (1994); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Mitchell 808 A.2d 62 N.H. 2002
State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 362 (1997); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Bader 808 A.2d 12 N.H. 2002
State v. Soldi, 145 N.H. 571, 576 (2000); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Newman 808 A.2d 7 N.H. 2002
denied, 510 U.S. 917 (1993); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Enderson 804 A.2d 448 N.H. 2002
State v. Little, 123 N.H. 433, 437 (1983); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).
In re Crowe 804 A.2d 455 N.H. 2002
id.; State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Currier 808 A.2d 527 N.H. 2002
Accordingly, the court’s decision to wait until the conclusion of the evidence to dismiss the indictment was an unsustainable exercise of discretion.
In re Telgener 803 A.2d 1051 N.H. 2002
Id.; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard).
In re Gilmore 803 A.2d 601 N.H. 2002
Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44, 46 (2001); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Jordan 803 A.2d 604 N.H. 2002
State v. Pelkey, 145 N.H. 133, 136 (2000); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Berry 803 A.2d 593 N.H. 2002
State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 98 (1999); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).
State v. Gourlay 802 A.2d 1203 N.H. 2002
State v. James, 140 N.H. 50, 51 (1995); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Blackstock 802 A.2d 1169 N.H. 2002
Carlson, 146 N.H. at 56; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
In re Nyhan 802 A.2d 1183 N.H. 2002
Haycock, 139 N.H. at 611; State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).
DeMauro v. DeMauro 798 A.2d 45 N.H. 2002
Massicotte v. Matuzas, 143 N.H. 711, 712 (1999); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
In re Gordon 797 A.2d 867 N.H. 2002
id.; State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (setting forth unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
In re Valence 798 A.2d 35 N.H. 2002
Id.; see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
New Hampshire Department of Corrections v. Butland 797 A.2d 860 N.H. 2002
RSA 354-A:22; see also Massicotte v. Matuzas, 143 N.H. 711, 712 (1999); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).