Cited by

The trial court has broad discretion in awarding child support as part of a divorce decree, In the Matter of Spenard & Spenard, 167 N.H. 1, 3 (2014), and over the management of discovery, N.H. Ball Bearings v. Jackson, 158 N.H. 421, 429 (2009).

However, the trial court is permitted to keep discovery within reasonable limits and avoid “open-ended fishing expeditions” to ensure that discovery contributes to the orderly dispatch of judicial business.

A trial court’s decision to give a particular jury instruction must be based upon “some evidence to support a rational finding in favor of that instruction.” N.H. Ball Bearings v. Jackson, 158 N.H. 421, 434 (2009) (quotation and brackets omitted).

N.H. Ball Bearings v. Jackson, 158 N.H. 421, 429-30 (2009); cf. Super.

“We review a trial court’s rulings on the management of discovery under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” N.H. Ball Bearings v. Jackson, 158 N.H. 421, 429 (2009).

5 The purpose of jury instructions is to identify issues of material fact, and to explain to the jury, in clear and intelligible language, the proper standards of law by which it is to resolve them.

Decisions concerning pretrial discovery are within the sound discretion of the trial judge.

The admissibility of evidence is generally within the discretion of the trial court, and we will uphold its rulings unless the exercise of its discretion is unsustainable.

“Decisions concerning pretrial discovery are within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” N.H. Ball Bearings v. Jackson, 158 N.H. 421, 429 (2009).

N.H. Ball Bearings v. Jackson, 158 N.H. 421, 429 (2009) (“Although discovery rules are to be given a broad and liberal interpretation, the trial court has discretion to determine the limits of discovery.”).

We note that “[d]ecisions concerning pretrial discovery are within the sound discretion of the trial judge,” and we will uphold the trial judge’s decision unless it is an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in determining the limits of pretrial discovery.

Smyjunas and his wife in 1998 to determine that he was able, and therefore should, pay [J & M’s] judgment individually.” The admissibility of evidence is generally within the discretion of the trial court, and we will uphold its rulings unless the exercise of its discretion is unsustainable.

The purpose of jury instructions is to identify issues of material fact, and to explain to the jury, in clear and intelligible language, the proper legal standards to be applied to factual findings in reaching a verdict.