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 Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 914 A.2d 1226.

14 citing documents.

  • Moffat v. Srebro 2026 N.H. 25 N.H. 2026
    Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 154 N.H. 662, 669-70 (2006) (concluding party waived appellate argument by conceding issue in the trial court).
  • State v. Montgomery 2026 N.H. 24 N.H. 2026
    Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 154 N.H. 662, 669-70 (2006).
  • Rivas v. Ciecko 2026 N.H. 2 N.H. 2026
    To show that the trial court’s decision was not sustainable, the plaintiff, as the appealing party, must show that the ruling was “clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of [her] case.” Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 154 N.H. 662, 665 (2006) (quotation omitted).
  • Contoocook Valley Sch. Dist. v. State 2025 N.H. 29 N.H. 2025
    Milliken v. Dartmouth- Hitchcock Clinic, 154 N.H. 662, 665 (2006).
  • Lois Stearns & a. v. Town of Gorham & a. N.H. 2025
    Indeed, the plaintiffs expressly disclaimed a request for injunctive relief in a pretrial pleading by stating that “[i]nverse condemnation is not a basis for injunction nor have plaintiffs made such an argument.” Cf. Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 154 N.H. 662, 669-70 (2006) (finding appellate issue waived because trial counsel conceded the issue).
  • In re Estate of Edward D. Maynard, Jr. N.H. 2019
    Milliken v. Dartmouth- Hitchcock Clinic, 154 N.H. 662, 665 (2006) (specific and contemporaneous objection is required to preserve issue for appellate review); 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).
  • Wayne Ross, Trustee of the Wayne Ross Revocable Trust & a. v. Donald W. Ross & a. 172 A.3d 1069 N.H. 2017
    Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 154 N.H. 662, 669-70 (2006) (concluding that plaintiffs waived appellate argument by conceding issue in trial court).
  • State v. Thomas Milton 150 A.3d 926 N.H. 2016
    Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 154 N.H. 662, 669-70 (2006) (concluding that plaintiffs waived appellate argument by conceding issue in trial court).
  • In the Matter of Michael Kurland and Jennifer Kurland N.H. 2015
    Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 154 N.H. 662, 668 (2006) (“An objection made later in the witness’s testimony, during cross- examination by the defense, does not preserve this issue on appeal.”).
  • J & M Lumber & Construction Co. v. Smyjunas 20 A.3d 947 N.H. 2011
    Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 154 N.H. 662, 670 (2006); see RSA 516:29-b, II.
  • Laramie v. Stone 999 A.2d 262 N.H. 2010
    “To show that the trial court’s decision was not sustainable, the appealing party must show that the ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 154 N.H. 662, 665 (2006) (quotation omitted).
  • Goudreault v. Kleeman 965 A.2d 1040 N.H. 2009
    “In deciding whether to qualify a witness as an expert, the trial judge must conduct an adequate investigation of the expert’s qualifications.” Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 154 N.H. 662, 667 (2006) (quotation omitted); cf. RSA 516:29-a, I (2007).
  • State v. Labranche 942 A.2d 1284 N.H. 2008
    Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 154 N.H. 662, 665 (2006).
  • Singer Asset Finance Co., LLC v. Wyner 937 A.2d 303 N.H. 2007
    Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 154 N.H. 662, 665 (2006).