Cited by

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

309 citing documents.

In re Levreault 798 A.2d 581 N.H. 2002
id.; Stale v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (setting forth unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Brewster 796 A.2d 158 N.H. 2002
State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 165-66 (1993); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 295 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
McGrath v. Town of Canaan 795 A.2d 828 N.H. 2002
Town of Littleton v. Taylor, 188 N.H. 419, 421 (1994); cf State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Spaulding 794 A.2d 800 N.H. 2002
State v. Rogers, 138 N.H 503, 507 (1994); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining the unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
State v. Gaffney 795 A.2d 243 N.H. 2002
State v. Johnson, 144 N.H. 175, 180 (1999); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).
State v. Porter 795 A.2d 827 N.H. 2002
The trial court’s decision not to rule upon the merits of the defendant’s pro se motions was a sustainable exercise of its discretion.
In re Guardianship of Brittany S. 792 A.2d 384 N.H. 2002
While the probate court did not elaborate upon its balancing test analysis, it obviously applied the proper test and we cannot say that its conclusions reflect an unsustainable exercise of discretion.
Brzica v. Trustees of Dartmouth College 791 A.2d 990 N.H. 2002
at 34; cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard).
In re Antonio W. 790 A.2d 125 N.H. 2002
In re Brittany L., 144 N.H. 139, 144 (1999); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).