Cited by

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

Under these circumstances, we conclude that the husband has failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed reversible error, as was his burden as the appealing party.

As the appealing party, the defendants have the burden of demonstrating that the trial court committed reversible error when it ruled that the undisputed facts establish that they did not extinguish the plaintiffs’ right of access through adverse possession.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

ecause, he claims, he “brought the litigation in good faith for a valid reason,” because he “has only been afforded one opportunity through counsel to address defects in the pleadings,” and because he “was not afforded discovery to develop his legal theories.” 5 As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

Alukonis v. Kashulines, 97 N.H. 298, 300 (1952) (holding that a survey of a property did not interrupt the continuity of an adverse possession claim over that property); Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 739 (2014) (holding that a party failed to demonstrate that a trial court committed reversible error, where the trial court asserted that a “mere casual entry by the record owner for a limited purpose is not necessarily sufficient to destroy adverse possession” (quotation omitted)).

Business Administration’s] existing protocols and standard operating procedures”; (6) finding that the bank “has not acted unreasonably or otherwise breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing”; and (7) finding that the plaintiffs had not “demonstrated the right to permanent injunctive relief.” As the appealing parties, the plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

To the extent that the defendant raises other issues, as the appealing party he has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

The trial court determined that the recreational use immunity statutes “control over” RSA 507-B:2 because “they require a higher threshold for liability” and because their provisions are “more specific” than “the general municipal liability law.” On appeal, the plaintiff neither argues nor demonstrates that the trial court’s analysis constitutes reversible error.

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

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

As the appealing parties with respect to this issue, the defendants have the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014); Bean v. Red Oak Prop.

were to conclude that resolution of the preemption issue required fact finding by the trial court, the defendants would still prevail given the trial court’s factual finding on remand that “utility excavation and patching of paved roadways with new pavement generally diminishes the roadway’s life expectancy.” As the appealing party, Liberty has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

As the appealing party, the petitioners have the burden of demonstrating reversible error, see Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014), and as noted above, on a petition for a writ of certiorari, we examine whether the department has “acted illegally with respect to jurisdiction, authority or observance of the law or has unsustainably exercised its discretion or acted arbitrarily, unreasonably or capriciously,” Petition of Chase Home for

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.

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

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

there is ‘proximity’”; and (8) not considering “the environmental sensitivity of existing uses surrounding the proposed use in determining proximity.” As the appealing party, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bellevue has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

Each party has the burden of demonstrating reversible error as to the issues he is raising on appeal.

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

It is the burden of the appealing party, here the plaintiff, to demonstrate reversible error on appeal.

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

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

Moreover, as the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court committed reversible error when it corrected its earlier, provisional, erroneous ruling that the Ellsworth exception applied to the witness testimony.

that he acknowledged, in his sworn affidavit, that he had not yet moved the shrubs); and (4) denying his request for “further instructions” and finding that its previous orders were “sufficiently clear that the Court need not micromanage each party’s use and enjoyment of his respective property rights.” As the appealing party, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

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

Each party has the burden of demonstrating reversible error as to those issues that the party is raising on appeal.

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

Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned orders, the trustee’s challenges to them, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the trustee has not demonstrated reversible error.