2014-0359 Nonprecedential Affirmed Processed

Peter Pratt & a. v. William Doherty & a.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Filed February 18, 2015

The holding in the court’s own words

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2014-0359, Peter Pratt & a. v. William Doherty & a., the court on February 18, 2015, issued the following order: Having considered the parties’ briefs 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 narrative order, Doherty’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that Doherty has not demonstrated reversible error.

View full opinion text ↓

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.

103 A.3d 1183 not in our corpus

Opinion text

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0359, Peter Pratt & a. v. William Doherty
& a., the court on February 18, 2015, issued the following order:

Having considered the parties’ briefs and the record submitted on appeal,
we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R.
18(1). Defendant Holly Doherty appeals a March 2014 order of the Superior
Court (Wageling, J.), resolving the outstanding issues between her and the
plaintiffs, Peter and Rachel Pratt. Despite the parties’ April 2013 settlement of all
matters except those related to the height of the fence at issue, Doherty first
challenges a 2012 order denying her motion to dismiss, arguing that dismissal
was required under the doctrines of laches, res judicata, and/or collateral
estoppel. She also challenges the court’s 2014 order, arguing that: (1) there is
no evidence to support the trial court’s finding that a six-foot tall fence is
“reasonable”; (2) it was error for the trial court to find the testimony of one expert
more persuasive than the testimony of the other expert; (3) the court’s laches
ruling is incorrect; and (4) the court exceeded its “jurisdiction” when it “reformed”
the April 2013 order.

As the appealing party, Doherty has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. See Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. ___, ___, 103 A.3d 1183, 1186
(2014). Based upon our review of the trial court’s narrative order, Doherty’s
challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that Doherty has not demonstrated reversible error. See id. at ___, 103
A.3d at 1186.

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

Distribution:
Rockingham County Superior Court - 218-2012-CV-00102
Hon. John M. Lewis
Hon. Marguerite L. Wageling
Hon. Tina L. Nadeau
Mr. William Doherty
Jason A. Bielagus, Esq.
Douglas W. Macdonald, Esq.
Timothy A. Gudas, Supreme Court
Allison R. Cook, Supreme Court
File

p. 2