Cited by

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 178, 180-81 (2012).

“As the fact finder, the trial court was entitled to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness or party, and was not required to believe even uncontroverted evidence.” In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 181 (2012).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 183 (2012).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 183 (2012).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 181 (2012).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 181 (2012); see In the Matter of Yaman & Yaman, 167 N.H. at 96 (“[T]he court was not required to credit [the mother’s] offers of proof (any more than it would have been required to credit [her] live testimony.

Absent special circumstances, the court must make the distribution as equal as possible.” In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 183 (2012) (quotations, citations, and brackets omitted).

State v. Collyns, 166 N.H. 514, 517 (2014) (to prevail on his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt); In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 181 (2012) (observing that, as the fact finder, the trial court was entitled to accept or reject in whole or in part, the te

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 182 (2012).

The trial court may award a particular asset in 2 its entirety to one party, In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 183 (2012), and may award inherited property to the party who inherited it, if the court concludes that such an award is equitable, Henderson v. Henderson, 121 N.H. 807, 810 (1981).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 183 (2012).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 183 (2012).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 183 (2012).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 183 (2012).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 183 (2012).

We will not disturb the findings of the trial court “unless they lack evidentiary support or are legally erroneous.” In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 178 (2012).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 181 (2012) (observing that, as the fact finder, the trial court was entitled to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness or party).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 181 (2012) (as trier of fact, a trial court is entitled to accept, in whole or in part, witness testimony and to disbelieve even uncontroverted evidence).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 178 (2012).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 183 (2012).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 183 (2012).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 181 (2012) (“As the fact finder, the trial court was entitled to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness or party, and was not required to believe even uncontroverted evidence.”).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 181 (2012).

“RSA 458:16-a, II creates a presumption that equal distribution of marital property is equitable.” In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 183 (2012) (quotation omitted).

In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 181 (2012) (conflicts in evidence are for the trial court to resolve).

“While the testimony presented by the parties conflicted, the trial judge was in the best position to evaluate the evidence, measure its persuasiveness and assess the credibility of the witnesses.” In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 180 (2012) (quotation omitted).