Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite In re Kosek, 871 A.2d 1.

27 citing documents.

In the Matter of Valerie Bois and Alan Bois N.H. 2025
While the court’s order does not explicitly state that it denied reimbursement alimony because the property division in Wife’s favor was adequate to provide compensation for unpaid work, “[w]e must assume that the trial court made subsidiary findings necessary to support its general ruling.” In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 725 (2005).
In the Matter of Mark Foley and Kasey Woodman N.H. 2024
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 725 (2005).
In the Matter of Wendy Mispel-John and Robert John N.H. 2020
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 727-28 (2005).
In re Simone Garczynski Irrevocable Trust N.H. 2020
generally In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 726-27 (2005).
In the Matter of David Connelly and Kimberly Kivela N.H. 2020
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 725 (2005).
In the Matter of Crystal Ndyaija and Joshua Ndyaija N.H. 2020
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 724-25 (2005) (assuming the trial court found, and concluding that the record supports, that its modification to a visitation schedule was not contrary to the best interests of the children).
Alan Armstrong & a. v. Maria Giakoumakis & a. N.H. 2019
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 727-28 (2005).
In the Matter of Daniela Gamboa Soriano and Benjamin Ross N.H. 2019
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 725 (2005).
In the Matter of James J. Miller and Janet S. Todd N.H. 2019
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 725 (2005); RSA 461-A:11, I(e) (2018) (authorizing trial court to give “substantial weight” to mature minor’s residential preference).
In the Matter of Tanya Bourgeois and Michael Cook N.H. 2018
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 725 (2005).
In the Matter of Tara Broom and Jeffrey Broom N.H. 2017
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 725 (2005).
In the Matter of Sumner Chabot and Brittney Ober N.H. 2016
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 725 (2005).
Brian A. Gillis, as Trustee of the Gillis Family Irrevocable Trust of 2012 v. Randall S. Lawson & … N.H. 2016
See, e.g., In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 726 (2005) (noting that “[t]he power of contempt to enforce previous orders of a court of general jurisdiction is extensive”).
Robin Carbone v. Stephen DePaula N.H. 2015
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 727 (2005).
In the Matter of Valentina Conant and William Faller N.H. 2015
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 727-28 (2005).
In the Matter of Molly Cote and Kenneth Cote N.H. 2015
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 725 (2005).
In the Matter of Ismail Yaman and Linda Yaman 167 N.H. 82 N.H. 2014
Neither the UCCJEA itself, nor its official comments, define “opportunity to be heard.” We have previously held that “[t]he right to be heard in custody and visitation cases encompasses the right to call and cross-examine witnesses, to be informed of all adverse evidence, and to challenge such evidence.” In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 728 (2005).
In Re Brownell 44 A.3d 534 N.H. 2012
“Contempt is an offense at common law — a specific and substantive offense that is separate and distinct from the matter in litigation out of which the contempt arose.” In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 726 (2005).
State v. Smith 163 N.H. 13 N.H. 2011
“Contempt is an offense at common law — a specific and substantive offense that is separate and distinct from the matter in litigation out of which the contempt arose.” In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 726 (2005).
In Re Miller 20 A.3d 854 N.H. 2011
As we have recognized, “the obstruction by a custodial parent of visitation between a child and the noncustodial parent may, if continuous, constitute behavior so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to raise a strong possibility that the child will be harmed.” Webb v. Knudson, 133 N.H. 665, 673 (1990); see also In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 728 (2005).
In Re Rix 20 A.3d 326 N.H. 2011
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 724 (2005).
In Re Rupa 13 A.3d 307 N.H. 2010
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 724 (2005).
In Re Aube 969 A.2d 338 N.H. 2009
‘We must assume that the trial court made subsidiary findings necessary to support its general ruling.” In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 725 (2005).
In Re Choy 919 A.2d 801 N.H. 2007
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 724 (2005).
In Re Hampers 911 A.2d 14 N.H. 2006
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 725 (2005).
In re Stall 889 A.2d 18 N.H. 2005
“The difference between civil and criminal contempt is the character of the punishment.” In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 727 (2005).
In re R.A. 891 A.2d 564 N.H. 2005
In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 725 (2005).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by