Vyacheslav Baranov v. Valentin Karas
Vyacheslav Baranov v. Valentin Karas, No. 2013-0051 (N.H. Apr. 7, 2015).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2013-0051, Vyacheslav Baranov v. Valentin Karas, the court on April 7, 2015, issued the following order: Having considered the brief, the memorandum of law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Based upon our review of the trial court’s order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff has not demonstrated reversible error.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Ralph P. Gallo & a. v. Susan Traina & a. 166 N.H. 737
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2013-0051, Vyacheslav Baranov v. Valentin
Karas, the court on April 7, 2015, issued the following order:
Having considered the brief, the memorandum of law, and the record
submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this
case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.
The plaintiff, Vyacheslav Baranov, appeals an order of the Circuit Court
(Michael, J.) ruling in favor of the defendant, Valentin Karas, on the plaintiff’s
small claim complaint. He contends that the trial court: (1) violated his right to
due process by denying his “Motion for Digital Forensic Examination of
Defendant’s Computer(s)”; and (2) erred by denying his “Motion to Set Aside the
Judgment,” the purpose of which was to give him access to a receipt that was the
subject of testimony at the first hearing on his claim.
As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the relevant law,
and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff has not
demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk