Cited by

Further, given that the Bureau ultimately supplied evidence supporting its request, any error in awarding these costs “did not affect the outcome below.” Kessler v. Gleich, 156 N.H. 488, 494 (2007).

We will affirm the trial court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence and its legal rulings unless they are erroneous as a matter of law.

We will affirm the trial court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence and its legal rulings unless they are erroneous as a matter of law.

Kessler v. Gleich, 156 N.H. 488, 494 (2007); cf. State v. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161, 168 (2015) (discussing prejudice prong of plain error test).

Kessler v. Gleich, 156 N.H. 488, 494 (2007) (declining to disturb judgment for an alleged error that did not affect the outcome of the case or otherwise harm the appealing party).

We will affirm the trial court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence and its legal rulings unless they are erroneous as a matter of law.

We will affirm the trial court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence.

We will affirm the trial court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence and its legal rulings unless they are erroneous as a matter of law.

Thus, the tenant has not shown how he was harmed by the purported defects in the affidavit.

We affirm the trial court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence and its legal rulings unless they are erroneous as a matter of law.

Kessler v. Gleich, 156 N.H. 488, 495 (2007) (interpreting “willfully” in context of fiduciary duty).

Kessler v. Gleich, 156 N.H. 488, 494 (2007) (stating we will not disturb trial court’s judgment when error did not affect outcome).

We will affirm the trial court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence.

Kessler v. Gleich, 156 N.H. 488, 494 (2007) (“Where it appears that an error did not affect the outcome below.

Kessler v. Gleich, 156 N.H. 488, 494 (2007) (trial court will be upheld where error does not affect outcome, or where we can determine that no injury occurred).

The petitioners contend that, notwithstanding the RESTATEMENT, “under New Hampshire law, both an unincorporated association and its members may sue to enforce the association’s contracts.” To support this assertion, they rely upon Kessler v. Gleich, 156 N.H. 488, 492-94 (2007), in which we ruled that a limited partner could bring a declaratory judgment proceeding against a general partner directly, and did not have to proceed through a derivative action.

The plaintiff is one of several limited partners of FHBA.

Accordingly, even assuming that the trial court lacked authority under RSA 540-A:4, VIII to require the defendant in the temporary order to affirmatively provide gas to the plaintiff, the purported error was harmless.