Cited by

A plaintiff “may not avoid a directed verdict by presenting evidence that is merely conjectural in nature,” but rather, “must present sufficient evidence to satisfy the burden of proof such that a reasonable [factfinder] could find in [his] favor.” Figlioli v. R.J.

“We have long recognized that justice is best served by a system that reduces surprise at trial by giving both parties the maximum amount of information.” Figlioli v. R.J.

Moreau Cos., 151 N.H. 618, 626 (2005); In the Matter of Conner & Conner, 156 N.H. 250, 252 (2007).

Moreau Cos., 151 N.H. 618, 621 (2005) (“When an act is wanton, malicious, or oppressive, the aggravating circumstances may be reflected in an award of enhanced compensatory damages.”).

See, e.g., Estate of Sicotte v. Lubin & Meyer, 157 N.H. 670, 673 (2008); Figlioli v. R.J.

entitled to disclosure of an opposing party’s experts, the substance of the facts and opinions about which they are expected to testify, and the basis of those opinions.” Figlioli v. R.J.

We address the remaining issues because they “are likely to arise on remand.” Figlioli v. R.J.

‘We will uphold a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a directed verdict when the record supports the conclusion that the trial court did not commit an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” Figlioli v. R.J.

“To meet this standard, the defendant must demonstrate that the trial court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” Figlioli v. R.J.