David Charles Peterson v. Jeanette Charon & a.
David Charles Peterson v. Jeanette Charon & a., No. 2023-0745 (N.H. Aug. 20, 2024).
The holding in the court’s own words
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 and affirm the court’s decision.
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. 2023-0745, David Charles Peterson v. Jeanette
Charon & a., the court on August 20, 2024, issued the following
order:
The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted on
appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct.
R. 20(2). The plaintiff, David Charles Peterson, appeals an order of the Superior
Court (Bornstein, J.) denying his verified motion to show authority/motion to
strike, and granting the motion of the defendants, Jeanette Charon and Town of
Dalton, to dismiss his verified bill for writ of quo warranto. The plaintiff advances
several arguments challenging the trial court’s decision. 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 and affirm the court’s decision. See id.; Sup. Ct. R. 25(8).
Affirmed.
MacDonald, C.J., and Bassett, Donovan, and Countway, JJ., concurred.
Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk