Cited by

“We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law, and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or tainted by error of law.” Achille v. Achille, 167 N.H. 706, 715 (2015).

The trial court has broad discretion to manage the proceedings before it.

With respect to the request for a continuance, the trial court has broad discretion in managing the proceedings before it, and we will reverse its denial of the motion to continue only if Jonilionis establishes that its decision was clearly unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law, and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or tainted by error of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law, and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or erroneous as a matter of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law, upholding the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they lack evidentiary support or are tainted by error of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law, upholding the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they lack evidentiary support or are tainted by error of law.

To obtain relief under RSA chapter 173-B, the plaintiff must show “abuse” by a preponderance of the evidence.

ressly recognized that there is no constitutional right to stay a domestic violence protective order proceeding pending resolution of a related criminal case, and that continuing the domestic violence protective order case in favor of the related criminal case would “contravene[] the high priority that the legislature has placed upon avoiding delay in domestic violence cases.” Achille v. Achille, 167 N.H. 706, 714 (2015).

Achille v. Achille, 167 N.H. 706, 715 (2015); see RSA 173-B:3, VI.2 When preforming this review, we accord considerable weight to the trial court’s judgments on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given testimony.

To obtain relief under RSA chapter 173-B, the plaintiff must show “abuse” by a preponderance of the evidence.

Analysis To obtain relief under RSA chapter 173-B, the plaintiff must show “abuse” by a preponderance of the evidence.

A trial court has broad discretion in managing proceedings before it.

The trial court has broad discretion in managing the proceedings before it.

to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.” Achille v. Achille, 167 N.H. 706, 710 (2015) (quotation omitted).

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or tainted by error of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or tainted by error of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or tainted by error of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or tainted by error of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or are legally erroneous.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or tainted by error of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or tainted by error of law.

The trial court has broad discretion to manage the proceedings before it.

The trial court has broad discretion to manage the proceedings before it.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or legally erroneous.

Other arguments raised by the petitioner are either not developed sufficiently to warrant our review, see Achille v. Achille, 167 N.H. 706, 718 (2015), or do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law, and uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or tainted by error of law.