Bruce Pollard v. Laurie Ann MacKinnon
Bruce Pollard v. Laurie Ann MacKinnon, No. 2020-0222 (N.H. Apr. 1, 2021).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2020-0222, Bruce Pollard v. Laurie Ann MacKinnon, the court on April 1, 2021, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs 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 work.
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2020-0222, Bruce Pollard v. Laurie Ann
MacKinnon, the court on April 1, 2021, issued the following
order:
Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
The plaintiff, Bruce Pollard, appeals the decision of the Superior Court
(Schulman, J.), following a bench trial, denying his claim against the
defendant, Laurie Ann MacKinnon, for compensation under a theory of
quantum meruit. The plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in concluding
that it was not reasonable for him to expect payment for his services under the
circumstances.
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. We affirm.
Affirmed.
MacDonald, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.
Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk