Cited by

Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 459 (2003) (concluding that the plaintiff’s motion, filed nearly two months after the trial had concluded, was insufficient, as a matter of law, to preserve its argument regarding jury instructions for appellate review); Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 170 (1992) (“If an objection [to jury instructions] is first ra

Transmedia Restaurant v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 460 (2003) (concluding that “opinion evidence on the value of the restaurant equipment offered by its lay purchaser and owner was properly admitted”).

Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 458-59 (2003) (objection to jury instruction raised in post-trial motion for reconsideration not timely); see also United States v. DiPietro, 936 F.2d 6, 11 (1st Cir. 1991) (noting that, had the defendant objected to mistrial at time it was declared, “the court could have asked the jury to remain while reconsidering

Generally speaking, “[a]ll objections to a jury charge are waived unless taken on the record before the jury retires.” Snelling v. City of Claremont, 155 N.H. 674, 688 (2007); see Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 458-59 (2003) (holding that challenge to trial court’s failure to provide a jury instruction was not preserved by post-trial motions).

“Issues must be raised at the earliest possible time, because trial forums should have a full opportunity to come to sound conclusions and to correct claimed errors in the first instance.” O’Hearne v. McClammer, 163 N.H. 430, 438 (2012) (quotation omitted); see also Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 458- 59 (2003) (holding that challenge to trial court’s failure to provide a jury instruction was not preserved by raising issue in post-trial motions).

Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 461 (2003) (stating weight and credibility of testimony is within the jury’s province).

See, e.g., Becksted v. Nadeau, 155 N.H. 615 (2007); Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454 (2003).

Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 461 (2003).

Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 457, 821 A.2d 983 (2003) (quotation omitted).

Philips v. Verax Corp., 138 N.H. 240, 248-49 (1994); Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 461-62 (2003).

Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 460 (2003).

“Direct review of a damages award is the responsibility of the trial judge, who may disturb a verdict as excessive (or inadequate) if its amount is conclusively against the weight of the evidence and if the verdict is manifestly exorbitant.” Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 462 (2003).

Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 457 (2003).

Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 457 (2003).

“Direct review of a damages award is the responsibility of the trial judge, who may disturb a verdict as excessive (or inadequate) if its amount is conclusively against the weight of the evidence and if the verdict is manifestly exorbitant.” Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 462 (2003) (quotation omitted).

Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 460 (2003).

We have long recognized that “[ejxpert testimony is required only where the subject presented is so distinctly related to some science, profession or occupation as to be beyond the ken of the average layperson.” Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 460 (2003) (quotations omitted).

Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 457 (2003).

is grounded in common sense and judicial economy----” Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 457 (2003) (quotations and citation omitted).