Cited by

t that he may be physically or mentally incapacitated, we note that “[i]t is within the province of the trial court to accept or reject, in whole or in part, whatever evidence was presented,” and “we defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

“The propriety of affording equitable relief in a particular case rests in the sound discretion of the trial court to be exercised according to the circumstances and exigencies of the case.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 782 (2003).

Whether a claim is barred by res judicata is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780-81 (2003) (describing plaintiff’s burden of proof in private nuisance action).

The trial court may accept or reject, in whole or in part, whatever evidence was presented; our standard of review is not whether we would have ruled differently than the trial court, but whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same evidence.

Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 777 (2003) (application of res judicata is “determined on a case-by-case basis”).

We defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence, Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003), and we will uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they lack evidential support or are legally erroneous.

We will affirm the trial court’s findings if a reasonable person could have made them based upon the evidence presented.

We will affirm the trial court’s findings if a reasonable person could have made such findings based upon the evidence presented.

Moreover, “we defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

Moreover, “we defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

Moreover, “we defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

Moreover, “we defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

Moreover, “we defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

“Our standard of review is not whether we would rule differently than the trial court, but whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

“‘Our standard of review is not whether we would rule differently than the trial court, but whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same evidence.’” In the Matter of Braunstein & Braunstein, 173 N.H. 38, 47 (2020) (quoting Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003)).

Moreover, “we defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

We will uphold the trial’s findings and rulings unless they are unsupported by the evidence or legally erroneous.

Moreover, “[i]t is within the province of the trial court to accept or reject, in whole or in part, whatever evidence was presented,” and “we defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

It is within the province of the trial court to accept or reject, in whole or in part, whatever evidence was presented.

ease.” He testified, “I gave [the tenant] one set of keys and that’s what was on the counter,” and that he did not know if the tenant had “made multiple sets of keys.” Although there was conflicting evidence, we defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence.

“Our standard of review is not whether we would rule differently than the trial court, but whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

ng time; however, the court agreed with the psychologist appointed at the GAL’s request that reducing the child’s time with the mother would not be in the child’s best interest because it would risk “undermining [the child’s] development and exacerbating [the child’s] distress.” We defer to the trial court to resolve conflicts in the testimony and determine the weight to be given to the evidence.

We defer to a trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given to testimony.

Under res judicata, a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive upon the parties in a subsequent litigation involving the same cause of action.

Res judicata has been established “to avoid repetitive litigation so that at some point litigation over a particular controversy must come to an end.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 777 (2003) (quotation omitted).

We uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they are unsupported by the evidence or legally erroneous.

“Our standard of review is not whether we would rule differently than the trial court, but whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

“Our standard of review is not whether we would rule differently than the trial court, but whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

We conclude that the trial court’s finding regarding the wife’s gross income could reasonably have been made based upon the evidence presented.

“Our standard of review is not whether we would rule differently than the trial court, but whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

Moreover, “we defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

“Our standard of review is not whether we would rule differently than the trial court, but whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

al. The court observed that the defendant “is unhappy with the appraised value of the property and does not want to pay the plaintiff’s invoice for services.” The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that he “is now entitled to be paid for his services.” We will uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they are not supported by the evidence or are legally erroneous.

“Our standard of review is not whether we would rule differently than the trial court, but whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003) (citations omitted).

It can apply to decisions of administrative bodies made in an adjudicative context.

It can apply to decisions of administrative bodies made in an adjudicative context.

We will uphold the trial court’s decision unless it is unsupported by the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law, deferring to the trial court’s judgment in evaluating the weight and credibility of the evidence presented at trial.

It is well-established that a trial court may grant injunctive relief to abate a nuisance, see, e.g., Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 782 (2003), or to enforce property rights, see, e.g., Traficante v. Pope, 115 N.H. 356, 359 (1975).

We defer to the trial court on such issues as resolving conflicts in testimony and measuring the credibility of witnesses, including expert witnesses.

It is within the province of the trial court to accept or reject, in whole or in part, whatever evidence was presented.

We will affirm the trial court’s findings if a reasonable person could have made such findings based upon the evidence presented.

With respect to the remaining issues, we note that it was within the discretion of the trial court to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the evidence presented, to evaluate the credibility of the parties, and to determine the weight of the evidence presented.

Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003) (stating trial court is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, whatever evidence was presented, including that of expert witnesses).

We defer to a trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given to testimony.

Moreover, “we defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence.” Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003) (stating trial court free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, whatever evidence was submitted, including testimony of expert witnesses).

Whether a claim is barred by res judicata is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 777 (2003) (stating that res judicata may apply “to a decision of an administrative agency which was rendered in a judicial capacity, resolved disputed issues properly before it and which the parties had an opportunity to litigate”).