Cited by

v. Ross, 170 N.H. 331, 337 (2017) (concluding argument was preserved because “although the trial court did not address [the defendant’s argument] in its order, the defendants’ failure to raise the issue earlier did not deprive the trial court of the opportunity to address it”); Mortgage Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764, 786-87 (2006).

When an issue is raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration and failure to raise the issue earlier did not deprive the trial court of a full opportunity to correct its error, the issue has been preserved for our review.

“Conclusively against the weight of the evidence means that the verdict was one no reasonable jury could return.” Mortgage Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764, 771 (2006) (quotation omitted).

Van Der Stok v. Van Voorhees, 151 N.H. 679, 681 (2005) (holding that appellant properly waited to file appeal until the trial court had issued a post-trial final ruling on attorney’s fees); see also Mortgage Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764, 786 (2006) (holding that party may preserve issue that could have been raised at earlier time by raising it in a motion for reconsideration if raising issue on reconsideration does not deprive trial court of opportunity to correct its error, or if trial co

Mortgage Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764, 786 (2006); see also State v. Plantamuro, 171 N.H. 253, 255 (2018).

The trial court has discretion not to address an argument raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration on the basis that the argument was not timely raised.

We review for an unsustainable exercise of discretion a trial court’s refusal to entertain new issues on reconsideration on the basis that the issues could have been raised at an earlier time.

“The rationale behind the rule is that trial forums should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.” Mortgage Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764, 786 (2006) (quotation and brackets omitted).

“The rationale behind the rule is that trial forums should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.” Mortgage Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764, 786 (2006) (quotation and brackets omitted).

the trial court exercises its discretion to refuse to entertain the issue on reconsideration due to the party’s failure to raise it at an earlier time, we will uphold that decision absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” Mortgage Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764, 786 (2006).

A party may preserve a claim of reversible error through a post-decision motion only if the failure to raise the issue earlier did not deprive the trial court of an opportunity to correct its error.

“The rationale behind the rule is that trial forums should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.” Mortgage Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764, 786 (2006) (quotation and brackets omitted).

“The rationale behind the rule is that trial forums should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.” Mortgage Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764, 786 (2006) (quotation and brackets omitted).

Mortgage Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764, 786 (2006) (stating we will uphold trial court’s decision not to entertain an issue raised for the first time in a motion to reconsider, absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion).

When in response to a motion to reconsider, a trial court declines to entertain an issue not raised at an earlier time, we will uphold that decision absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

Sargent, 148 N.H. at 574; cf. Mortgage Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764, 786 (2006) (purpose of preservation rule is to give trial forums “an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court” (quotation omitted)).

One category of unlawful acts involves “[disparaging the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact.” RSA 358-A:2, VIII; see Mortgage *83 Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764, 781 (2006).

Moreover, the argument is inadequately briefed.

The trial court denied *429 NHBB’s request for sanctions, stating that it had no authority to issue sanctions for what it considered to be indirect criminal contempt under our decision in Mortgage Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764 (2006).

We will "examine the language of the statute, ascribing to its words their plain and ordinary meanings, and interpret it in the context of the overall legislative scheme and not in isolation."

We will “examine the language of the statute, ascribing to its words their plain and ordinary meanings, and interpret it in the context of the overall legislative scheme and not in, isolation.” Mortgage Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764, 774 (2006).

Finally, a jury’s verdict may only be set aside if it is conclusively against the weight of the evidence or if it is the result of mistake, partiality, or corruption.

While we acknowledge that the tenants were self-represented in the trial court, our longstanding rule is that we do not review matters not raised at the earliest possible time.

Criminal contempt is a sanction imposed by the trial court when a defendant has intentionally failed to comply with a valid order of which the defendant had knowledge.

In the Matter of State & Taylor, 153 N.H. 700, 702 (2006) (treating whether trial court correctly ruled that lump sum personal injury settlement was “gross income” as matter of statutory construction); Mortgage Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764, 774 (2006) (“interpretation of a statute...