Cited by

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (interpretation of trial court order presents a question of law for this court).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (interpretation of a trial court order is a question of 2 law, which we review de novo).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (interpretation of trial court order presents a question of law for this court).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (stating that the interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (interpretation of trial court order presents a question of law for this court).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (explaining that the interpretation of a court order presents a question of law for this court).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 70203 (2008) (stating that interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law that we review de novo, that we construe subsidiary clauses of a court order so as not to conflict with its primary purpose, and that we interpret a court order with reference to the issues it was meant to decide).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (stating that interpretation of trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (stating that the interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (explaining that the interpretation of a court order presents a question of law for this court).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 704 (2008); see RSA 464-A:25,:26 (2018 & Supp. 2022) (powers and duties of the guardians of incapacitated persons and their estates).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702-03 (2008) (stating that the interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law subject to de novo review, to be construed in reference to the issues it was intended to decide).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (interpretation of trial court order is a matter of law).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (interpretation of trial court order presents a question of law for this court).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (stating that the interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 708 (2008).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (stating that interpretation of a trial court order presents a question of law, which we review de novo).

nctioned, but that it had to be run frequently in order to maintain heat in the house.” We interpret this finding as a determination by the trial court that Tenants failed to prove that Landlord did not “correct the violations within 14 days of the receipt of [their] written notice or, in an emergency, as promptly as conditions require.” RSA 540:13-d, I(b); see In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (explaining that the interpretation of a trial court order is a question of

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (explaining that we interpret a trial court order de novo).

In re Kilton, 156 N.H. 632, 645 (2007) (matters of public policy are reserved for the legislature); see also In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (interpretation of trial court order presents a question of law for this court).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 708 (2008).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (interpretation of trial court order presents a question of law for this court).

State v. Simone, 151 N.H. 328, 331 (2004); see also In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (explaining that the interpretation of a trial court order presents a question of law for our de novo review).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (interpretation of trial court order presents a question of law for this court).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008).

We do not construe the trial court’s order as failing to apply the best interest standard set forth in RSA 461-A:6, I. See In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (interpretation of trial court order presents a question of law for this court).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (stating that the interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (stating that interpretation of trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (we construe trial court’s order with reference to issues it was intended to decide).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (“The interpretation of a court order is a question of law, which we 14 review de novo.”).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (interpretation of trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008); Nassar, 156 N.H. at 772.

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (explaining that the interpretation of a court order is a question of law).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008).

In the Matter of Salesky 3 & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (stating that interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (explaining that the interpretation of a trial court 3 order presents a question of law, which we review de novo).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (stating interpretation of trial court order is question of law, which we review de novo).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (“The interpretation of a court order is a question of law, which we review de novo.”).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (stating that interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo).

RSA 464-A:2, VII, XI (2018),:9 (2018); see also In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 703 (2008) (interpreting order appointing co-guardians such that the rights removed from the ward due to his incapacity to exercise them “were the very powers and authorities conferred, and the duties and obligations imposed upon the co-guardians” (quotation omitted)).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (interpretation of trial court order presents a question of law for this court).

1 We interpret the superior court’s order as a determination that the statutory appeal period set forth in RSA 169-C:28, I, is not jurisdictional, that the court may waive it for “good cause,” and that Father failed to demonstrate “good cause.” See In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (explaining that the meaning of a trial court order raises an issue of law and that we interpret the order de novo).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (interpretation of trial court order presents a question of law for this court).

In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (explaining that the meaning of a trial court order raises an issue of law and that we interpret such orders de novo).