Brent Tweed & a. v. Town of Nottingham & a.
Brent Tweed & a. v. Town of Nottingham & a., No. 2020-0260 (N.H. Dec. 23, 2020).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2020-0260, Brent Tweed & a. v. Town of Nottingham & a., the court on December 23, 2020, 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 orders, NWA’s challenges to them, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that NWA 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.
- LaMarche v. McCarthy 158 N.H. 197
- State v. Lambert 147 N.H. 295
- Ralph P. Gallo & a. v. Susan Traina & a. 166 N.H. 737
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2020-0260, Brent Tweed & a. v. Town of
Nottingham & a., the court on December 23, 2020, 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 appellant, Nottingham Water Alliance, Inc. (NWA), appeals orders of the
Superior Court (Delker and Honigberg, JJ.) denying its motion and renewed
motion to intervene in litigation concerning the validity of a municipal
ordinance that it drafted, but allowing it to file a memorandum of law, as an
amicus curiae, in support of the ordinance’s validity. We affirm.
In denying NWA’s motions, the trial court determined that NWA lacked a
sufficiently direct and apparent interest in the case so as to entitle it to
intervene. See Lamarche v. McCarthy, 158 N.H. 197, 200 (2008). We will not
overturn the trial court’s decision absent an unsustainable exercise of
discretion. Id. To establish an unsustainable exercised of discretion, NWA
must demonstrate that the ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the
prejudice of its case. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).
As the appealing party, NWA 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 orders, NWA’s challenges to them, the relevant law,
and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that NWA has not
demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.
Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk