Cited by

RSA 633:3-a, III-a; Fisher v. Minichiello, 155 N.H. 188, 193 (2007) (“RSA 633:3-a, III-a arguably mandates the applicability of our interpretation of RSA chapter 173-B to orders on civil stalking petitions.”).

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or are erroneous as a matter of law.

RSA 633:3-a, III-a; Fisher v. Minichiello, 155 N.H. 188, 190 (2007).

In an appeal from an order granting a civil stalking final order of protection, we uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or are erroneous as a matter of law, and accord considerable weight to the trial court’s judgments on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given testimony.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or are erroneous as a matter of law.

Fisher v. Minichiello, 155 N.H. 188, 193 (2007); Fillmore v. Fillmore, 147 N.H. 283, 285 (2001).

Fisher v. Minichiello, 155 N.H. 188, 193 (2007); Fillmore v. Fillmore, 147 N.H. 283, 285 (2001).

We uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or are erroneous as a matter of law, and accord considerable weight to the trial court’s judgments on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given testimony.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or erroneous as a matter of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or erroneous as a matter of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or erroneous as a matter of law.

We have held that, when issuing a civil stalking final order of protection, the trial court is required to make specific findings, on the record, as to the acts constituting the course of conduct.

We review the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they lack evidentiary support or are erroneous as a matter of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they lack evidentiary support or are erroneous as a matter of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or tainted by error of law.

On appeal, we review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they lack evidentiary support or are erroneous as a matter of law.

generally Fisher v. Minichiello, 155 N.H. 188, 190-92 (2007) (discussing proof requirements).

On appeal, we review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or tainted by error of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or tainted by error of law.

The legislature passed RSA chapter 633:3-a with a focus upon protecting individuals from “domestic violence and problems of like gravity, such as threatening strangers and obsessive former lovers,” and in recognition of the fact that “[h]arassing and threatening behaviors toward innocent people is a serious problem.” Fisher v. Minichiello, 155 N.H. 188, 195 (2007) (Dalianis, J., concurring) (quotation omitted).

“In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiters of the legislature’s intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.” Fisher v. Minichiello, 155 N.H. 188, 191 (2007).

“On appeal, we review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidential support or tainted by error of law.” Fisher v. Minichiello, 155 N.H. 188, 190 (2007).

Fisher v. Minichiello, 155 N.H. 188, 193 (2007) (exercising supervisory authority and providing instructions to trial courts in their issuance of civil stalking orders).

When examining the language of the statute, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meaning to the words used.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidential support or tainted by error of law.

When examining the language of the statute, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meaning to the words used.

Fisher v. Minichiello, 155 N.H. 188, 193 (2007); see also Fillmore v. Fillmore, 147 N.H. 283, 285 (2001) (interpreting domestic violence protective order statutes, see RSA 173-B:1,:5 (2002), to impose similar requirement).

On appeal, Middleton argues that: (1) the protective order must be vacated because the trial court failed to make specific findings in support of its grant of a final stalking order, as required by Fisher v. Minichiello, 155 N.H. 188, 193 (2007); (2) his conduct was necessary to accomplish a legitimate purpose independent of making contact with Kiesman and, therefore, he was not engaging in a course of conduct as required by RSA 633:3-a, 11(a); and (3) there is insufficient evidence to support t

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidential support or tainted by error of law.