Starbrite Leasing, Inc. & a. v. Douglas A. Garland & a.
Starbrite Leasing, Inc. & a. v. Douglas A. Garland & a., No. 2015-0493 (N.H. Apr. 29, 2016).
The holding in the court’s own words
Having reviewed and considered its contents, we conclude that the DVD has no bearing upon our analysis. Having considered the brief, memorandum of law, reply brief, and record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. 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.
- Ralph P. Gallo & a. v. Susan Traina & a. 166 N.H. 737
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2015-0493, Starbrite Leasing, Inc. & a. v.
Douglas A. Garland & a., the court on April 29, 2016, issued the
following order:
The DVD submitted with the plaintiff’s “motion for leave to submit
evidentiary DVD to facilitate judicial review of appellants’ brief and reply to
defendants’ memorandum of law” does not appear to have been presented to
the trial court, according to the defendants. Having reviewed and considered
its contents, we conclude that the DVD has no bearing upon our analysis.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion is moot.
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.
Plaintiff Edward C. Furlong, III, appeals an order of the Superior Court
(Temple, J.) dismissing his claims against the defendants, Douglas Garland,
Bartlett Water Precinct, and Town of Bartlett, as barred by the doctrine of res
judicata and the terms of a temporary access agreement, which was upheld as
valid and enforceable in a prior case. See Lil’ Man Snowmobile/Jet Ski
Rentals, Inc. and Edward C. Furlong III v. Bartlett Water Precinct and Town of
Bartlett, Carroll County Docket No. 08-E-0160 (Dec. 10, 2009), affirmed sub
nom. Lil’ Man Snowmobile and Jet Ski Rentals, Inc. & a. v. Bartlett Water
Precinct & a., No. 2011-0051 (N.H. July 22, 2011). The plaintiff raises
numerous challenges to the trial court’s order.
As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). 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, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk