Cited by

tlement in these types of cases.” Although the evidence before the trial court was conflicting, we defer to its judgment to resolve “conflicts in testimony, measure the credibility of witnesses, and determine the weight to be given to testimony, recognizing that as the trier of fact, it is in the best position to measure the persuasiveness and credibility of evidence.” In re Guardianship of E.L., 154 N.H. 292, 296 (2006) (quotations, brackets, and citation omitted).

In re Guardianship of E.L., 154 N.H. 292, 296 (2006).

In re Guardianship of E.L., 154 N.H. 292, 296 (2006).

154 N.H. 292, 296, 911 A.2d 35 (2006) (observing that we defer to the judgment of the probate division to "resolve conflicts in testimony, measure the credibility of witnesses, and determine the weight to be given to testimony, recognizing that as the trier of fact, it is in the best position to measure the persuasiveness and cre

In re Guardianship of E.L., 154 N.H. 292, 296 (2006).

In re Guardianship of E.L., 154 N.H. 292, 296 (2006) (explaining that “we do not reweigh the evidence to determine whether we would have ruled differently,” and recognizing that the trier of fact “is in the best position to measure the persuasiveness and credibility of evidence” and that it “lies within the province of the trial court to accept or reject, in

We defer to the judgment of the probate division to resolve “conflicts in testimony, measure the credibility of witnesses, and determine the weight to be given to testimony, recognizing that as the trier of fact, it is in the best position to measure the persuasiveness and credibility of evidence.” In re Guardianship of E.L., 154 N.H. 292, 296 (2006) (quotations, brackets, and citation omitted).

In re Guardianship of E.L., 154 N.H. 292, 296 (2006).

In re Guardianship of E.L., 154 N.H. 292, 296 (2006); RSA 567-A:4 (2007).

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence,” “[o]ur task is to review the record to *474 determine whether it supports the probate court’s finding that the guardian proved these statutory components beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re Guardianship of E.L., 154 N.H. 292, 296 (2006).

In re Guardianship of E.L., 154 N.H. 292, 300 (2006).

v. Town of Weare, 153 N.H. 510, 511-12 (2006) (legislature will not be presumed to enact legislation “nullifying, to an appreciable extent, the purpose of the statute”); cf. In re Guardianship of E.L., 154 N.H. 292, 301 (2006) (requiring guardian to prove continued incapacity of ward solely upon acts, occurrences or statements within six months of termination motion would lead to absurd result).

In re Guardianship of E.L., 154 N.H. 292, 296 (2006).