Cited by

Burns v. Bradley, 120 N.H. 542, 544-45 (1980) (holding that the fact the plaintiff “had seven drinks at the [defendants’ establishment],” standing alone, was insufficient to prove that the defendants breached their duty to refrain from serving liquor to the plaintiff while he was intoxicated).

In re Lisa H., 134 N.H. 188, 195 (1991); see also Burns v. Bradley, 120 N.H. 542, 546 (1980).

However, this deficiency is not fatal because neither party requested findings of fact or rulings of law, see RSA 567-A:4 (2007); see also In re Jonathan T., 148 N.H. 296, 304 (2002), and, as we have previously stated, “in the absence of specific findings, the trial court is presumed to have made all findings necessary to support its decree,” Burns v. Bradley, 120 N.H. 542, 546 (1980) (quotation omitted) (upholding a trial court’s grant of directed verdict even though “the record d[id] not clear

Id.; see also Burns v. Bradley, 120 N.H. 542, 544, 419 A.2d 1069, 1071 (1980).

Foss & Son, Inc., 122 N.H. 757, 761, 449 A.2d 1231, 1234 (1982) (quoting Burns v. Bradley, 120 N.H. 542, 546, 419 A.2d 1069, 1072 (1980)).

The decision in Rounds is one such instance since it does not overrule an established precedent upon which litigants relied, see Burns v. Bradley, 120 N.H. 542, 545, 419 A.2d 1069, 1071 (1980); Hampton Nat’l Bank v. Desjardins, 114 N.H. 68, 74-75, 314 A.2d 654, 658 (1974); Merrill v. Manchester, 114 N.H. 722, 729-30, 332 A.2d 378, 383-84 (1974); Vickers v. Vickers, 109 N.H. 69, 70-71, 242 A.2d 57, 58 (1968), and since retroactive application of Rounds would not result in

Recognizing that landowners had conducted their affairs in reliance on these distinctions, we refused to give the decision retroactive effect.

Furthermore, we hold that the trial court implicitly rejected the plaintiff’s waiver argument because, “in the absence of specific findings, a court is presumed to have made all findings necessary to support its decree.” Burns v. Bradley, 120 N.H. 542, *762 546, 419 A.2d 1069, 1072 (1980) (quoting Lepage v. L’Heureux, 119 N.H. 201, 202, 399 A.2d 977, 978 (1979)); see Buxton v. Glennon, 122 N.H. 674, 676, 448 A.2d 420, 421 (1982).

On appeal, however, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in applying Ouellette because in Burns v. Bradley, 120 N.H. 542, 545, 419 A.2d 1069, 1071 (1980), this court stated that Ouellette would apply only prospectively.

that ‘a wrong reason given by a court does not invalidate a correct ruling.’ ” Sprague v. Town of Acworth, 120 N.H. 641, 643, 419 A.2d 1075, 1076 (1980) (quoting H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Boucher, 98 N.H. 399, 404, 101 A.2d 466, 469-70 (1953)); see Burns v. Bradley, 120 N.H. 542, 546-47, 419 A.2d 1069, 1072 (1980).

Slater v. Planning Board of Town of Rumney supra; Sprague v. Town of Acworth, 120 N.H. 641, 644, 419 A.2d 1075, 1076 (1980); Burns v. Bradley, 120 N.H. 542, 546-47, 419 A.2d 1069, 1072 (1980).

Sprague v. Town of Acworth, 120 N.H. 641, 644, 419 A.2d 1075, 1076 (1980); Burns v. Bradley, 120 N.H. 542, 546-47, 419 A.2d 1069, 1072 (1980).

Consequently, we need not decide whether the trial court erroneously invoked the collateral estoppel doctrine, and we uphold the decision below.

Burns v. Bradley, 120 N.H. 542, 546-47, 419 A.2d 1069, 1072 (1980); Favorite v. Miller, 176 Conn. 310, 317, 407 A.2d 974, 978 (1978).