Cited by

When reviewing a trial court’s decision issued after a trial on the merits, “we uphold the trial court’s factual findings and rulings unless they lack evidentiary support or are legally erroneous.” Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 476 (2016).

Standard of Review [¶8] When reviewing a trial court’s decision after a trial on the merits, “we uphold the trial court’s factual findings and rulings unless they lack evidentiary support or are legally erroneous.” Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 476 (2016).

Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 482 (2016) (a premature filing of an appeal when a motion for reconsideration was pending did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction from ruling on the motion).

Gaucher v. Waterhouse, 175 N.H. 291, 299 (2022) (stating that entry of default judgment was interlocutory, and that “final judgment” was not entered until trial court subsequently determined damages); Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 482 (2016) (holding that when appellant filed appeal while a timely motion for reconsideration was pending in the trial court, the appeal was premature and did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to rule upon the pending motion); Cole v. Hobson,

Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 482 (2016) (holding that defendants’ appeal of the trial court’s order on the merits prior to the trial court’s ruling on the plaintiff’s timely motion to reconsider the denial of attorney’s fees was premature); Van Der Stok v. Van Voorhees, 151 N.H. 679, 681 (2005) (holding that appealing party properly waited to fi

Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 482 (2016); Bedard v. Town of Alexandria, 159 N.H. 740, 744 (2010).

Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 476 (2016).

Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 482 (2016).

Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 482 (2016) (holding that, because defendants filed appeal before trial court had ruled on motion for reconsideration of denial of attorney’s fees, appeal was premature and trial court had jurisdiction to rule on motion notwithstanding appeal); cf. Van Der Stok v. Van Voorhees, 151 N.H. 679, 681 (2005) (holding that p

Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 476 (2016).

Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 482 (2016).

at 161; see Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 482 (2016) (explaining that, under the American Rule, parties pay their own attorney’s fees absent statutorily or judicially-created exceptions).

Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 476 (2016).

To establish a prescriptive easement, the plaintiff must prove adversity, see Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 476 (2016), and as previously noted, the trial court found that the plaintiff’s use of the entire driveway was permissive from 2000 to 2004.

Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 476 (2016) (quotation and citations omitted).

Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 476 (2016).

Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 476 (2016).

Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 476 (2016).

In reviewing a trial court’s decision rendered after a trial on the merits, “we uphold the trial court’s factual findings and rulings unless they lack evidentiary support or are legally erroneous.” Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 476 (2016).

Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. P’ship, 169 N.H. 469, 476 (2016).

“When attorney’s fees are awarded against a private party who has acted in bad faith, the purpose is to do justice and vindicate rights, as well as to discourage frivolous lawsuits.” Jesurum v. WBTSCC Ltd. Partnership, 169 N.H. ___, ___, 151 A.3d 949, 961 (2016) (quotation omitted).