DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite In re Birmingham, 904 A.2d 636.

118 citing documents.

  • Loretta Peterson v. Rock Bastianelli N.H. 2016
    LaMontagne Builders v. Bowman Brook Purchase Group, 150 N.H. 270, 274 (2003); N.H. Dep’t of Corrections v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676, 679 (2002); see also In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006) (self-represented litigants are bound by the same procedural rules that govern parties represented by counsel).
  • In the Matter of Nadine M. Goulet and Richard E. Goulet, Jr. N.H. 2016
    In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006).
  • Governor's Island Club, Inc. v. Richard Homsi N.H. 2016
    Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006) (self-represented litigants are bound by the same procedural rules that govern parties represented by counsel).
  • Scott Eaton v. Craig Shealy N.H. 2015
    In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006).
  • Robin Boutin v. Juan Rivera Ortiz N.H. 2015
    In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006).
  • In the Matter of Terrie Harman and Thomas McCarron 129 A.3d 311 N.H. 2015
    at 399-400 (where libelant concealed from libelee any notice of the proceedings, divorce was obtained by fraud); In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006) (record supports trial court’s finding that there was no accident, mistake, or misfortune to support vacating the final divorce decree); Sandberg v. Sandberg, 81 N.H. 317, 317 (1924) (trial court had power to grant the libelee’s motion to vacate the decree and reopen it for further hearing where libelee did
  • Ashley Hayes v. Kenneth Avery & a. N.H. 2015
    In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56-57 (2006).
  • Thomas Maniscalco v. Labonville, Inc. & a. N.H. 2015
    In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006).
  • Joseph Haas v. TD Bank N.H. 2015
    In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006).
  • Jahan Qureshi v. William J. Amann, Esq. & a. N.H. 2015
    In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006).
  • Robert Kindya v. Atrium Medical Corporation N.H. 2015
    Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006) (self-represented litigants are bound by the same procedural rules that govern parties represented by counsel).
  • Paula Herbeck & a. v. Miranda Royer; Miranda Royer & a. v. Paula Herbeck & a. N.H. 2015
    In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56-57 (2006).
  • In the Matter of John Tierney, III and Patricia Tierney N.H. 2015
    In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56-57 (2006).
  • In the Matter of Lisa Leary and John Leary N.H. 2015
    In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56-57 (2006).
  • Town of Hampton v. Thomas L. Morgenstern N.H. 2015
    In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56-57 (2006).
  • In re Taber-McCarthy 160 N.H. 112 N.H. 2010
    “A property settlement in a divorce decree is a final distribution of a sum of money or a specific portion of the spouses’ property and is not subject to judicial modification on account of changed circumstances.” In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 57 (2006) (quotation omitted).
  • In RE TABER-McCARTHY 993 A.2d 240 N.H. 2010
    In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 57, 904 A.2d 636 (2006) (quotation omitted).
  • In Re Goulart 965 A.2d 1068 N.H. 2009
    In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 57 (2006) (“A property settlement in a divorce decree is a final distribution of a sum of *333 money or a specific portion of the spouses’ property and is not subject to judicial modification on account of changed circumstances.