Kalika, LLC v. Boston & Maine Corporation & a.
Kalika, LLC v. Boston & Maine Corporation & a., No. 2014-0452 (N.H. Aug. 10, 2015).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2014-0452, Kalika, LLC v. Boston & Maine Corporation & a., the court on August 10, 2015, issued the following order: Having considered the brief, memorandum of law, reply brief, and record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Even if we were to assume that a copy of the complaint is not required to adequately review the plaintiff’s claims of error, based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned 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.
- Coyle v. Battles 147 N.H. 98
- Ralph P. Gallo & a. v. Susan Traina & a. 166 N.H. 737
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2014-0452, Kalika, LLC v. Boston & Maine
Corporation & a., the court on August 10, 2015, issued the
following order:
Having considered the brief, memorandum of law, reply brief, and record
submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this
case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.
The plaintiff, Kalika, LLC, appeals the order of the Superior Court
(McGuire, J.) dismissing its complaint against the defendants, Boston & Maine
Corporation and R. Matthew Cairns, Esq., arguing that its claims are not
barred by the statute of limitations, collateral estoppel, res judicata, or waiver.
As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of providing an
adequate record for our review, see Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001),
and demonstrating reversible error, see Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740
(2014). We note that the plaintiff has failed to provide a copy of the complaint.
Even if we were to assume that a copy of the complaint is not required to
adequately review the plaintiff’s claims of error, based upon our review of the
trial court’s well-reasoned 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, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk