Cited by

Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014) (holding that the appealing party bears the burden of demonstrating reversible error); Sup.

As the appealing party, the respondent has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the plaintiffs’ challenges to it, and the relevant law, we conclude that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated reversible error.

Estate of Day, 162 N.H. at 422; Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014); State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003).

In the Matter of Ndyaija & Ndyaija, 173 N.H. 127, 138 (2020) (holding that we review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for contempt under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard); Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014) (holding that the appealing party has the burden of demonstrating reversible error).

As the appealing party, Ford has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

See, e.g., Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014) (The appealing party has “the burden of demonstrating reversible error.”).

As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

Therefore, the Town has failed to show reversible error.

Notwithstanding the trial court’s delay in ruling on the motion, it is the petitioner’s burden to establish reversible error.

As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

As the appealing parties, the defendants have the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014) (the appealing party has the burden of demonstrating reversible error).

Based upon our review of the trial court’s narrative order, the executor’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record 2 submitted on appeal, we conclude that the executor has failed to demonstrate reversible error.

As the appealing party, Wife has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court’s parenting plan constitutes reversible error.

2 As the appealing parties, the plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

s not a violation of the CPA,” State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 262 (2008); and (3) “none of Jayco’s alleged conduct rises to the level of rascality that would amount to an unfair or deceptive act within the meaning of the CPA.” The plaintiff, as the appealing party, has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court’s dismissal of his CPA claim against Jayco constituted reversible error.

As the appealing party, Husband has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

As the appealing party, Mother has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

On appeal, she argues that the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion by denying her motion for a continuance filed two days before the hearing, and that its decision on the merits does not “comport with the Law.” As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

The trial court denied her motion, explaining that, because the plaintiff presented neither argument nor evidence at the remand hearing regarding the length of the violation, “there exists no reason to disturb the finding made in the original order as to the length of the violation.” The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that in so ruling, the trial court committed reversible error.

As the appealing party, Mother has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

Ct. R. 18(1), and that the defendant has not established reversible error, see Sup.

As the appealing party, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

Ct. R. 18(1), and that the defendants, as the appealing parties, have not established reversible error, see Sup.

Ct. R. 18(1), and that defendant, Heather Kelly Melvin, as the appealing party, has not established reversible error, see Sup.

Ct. R. 18(1), and that the respondent, Gregory Lombardo, as the appealing party, has not established reversible error, see Sup.

As the appealing party, the respondent has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

As the appealing party, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

Ct. R. 18(1), and that the defendant, as the appealing party, has not established reversible error, see Sup.

Ct. R. 18(1), and that the plaintiffs, as the appealing parties, have not established reversible error, see Sup.

As the appealing parties, the defendants have the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate reversible error.

Ct. R. 18(1), and that the plaintiff, as the appealing party, has not established reversible error, see Sup.

As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

Ct. R. 18(1), and that the defendant, as the appealing party, has not established reversible error, see Sup.

Ct. R. 18(1), and that the petitioner, Richard McMenamon, as the appealing party, has not established reversible error, see Sup.