DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Parkhurst v. Gibson, 573 A.2d 454.

13 citing documents.

  • HBD Drugg Real Estate, LLC v. Celia Harkins N.H. 2021
    Behrens, 153 N.H. at 504; Parkhurst v. Gibson (Parkhurst), 133 N.H. 57, 62 (1990); Lapierre v. Cabral, 122 N.H. 301, 306 (1982).
  • In the Matter of Sandra L. Patient and Marcel C. Patient, Jr. 169 A.3d 465 N.H. 2017
    The parol evidence rule prohibits the admission of extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the plain meaning of the terms of a contract, unless the contract is ambiguous.
  • In re Pasquale 777 A.2d 877 N.H. 2001
    Parkhurst v. Gibson (Parkhurst), 133 N.H. 57, 60 (1990) (affirming property settlement and alimony award in divorce action in which the parties’ attorneys signed an agreed statement of facts).
  • In re Samantha L. 761 A.2d 1093 N.H. 2000
    “Trial courts are necessarily given broad discretion in the assessment of a witness’s credibility and in the weighing of testimony.” Parkhurst v. Gibson (Parkhurst), 133 N.H. 57, 67, 573 A.2d 454, 459 (1990).
  • Appeal of Reid 722 A.2d 489 N.H. 1998
    “[A]bsent fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or ambiguity, we must restrict our search for the parties’ intent to the words of the contract.” Parkhurst v. Gibson (Parkhurst), 133 N.H. 57, 62, 573 A.2d 454, 457 (1990).
  • Galloway v. Chicago-Soft, Ltd. 713 A.2d 982 N.H. 1998
    Realty Trust, 137 N.H. 393, 396, 628 A.2d 260, 262 (1993); Parkhurst v. Gibson (Parkhurst), 133 N.H. 57, 61-62, 573 A.2d 454, 457 (1990), our standard of review is more deferential.
  • Bonneville v. Bonneville 702 A.2d 823 N.H. 1997
    Subsidiary clauses are construed so as not to conflict with the primary purpose of the decree.
  • Walsh v. Young 660 A.2d 1139 N.H. 1995
    “[A]bsent fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or ambiguity, we must restrict our search for the parties’ intent to the words of the contract.” Parkhurst v. Gibson (Parkhurst), 133 N.H. 57, 62, 573 A.2d 454, 457 (1990).
  • Concord Hospital v. New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass'n 633 A.2d 1384 N.H. 1993
    Absent ambiguity, our search for the parties’ intent here is limited to the words of the policies.
  • Holden Engineering & Surveying, Inc. v. Pembroke Road Realty Trust 628 A.2d 260 N.H. 1993
    Accordingly, extrinsic evidence should not have been used to contradict the contract, see Parkhurst v. Gibson (Parkhurst), 133 N.H. 57, 62, 573 A.2d 454, 457 (1990); Logic Assoc’s, Inc. v. Time Share Corp., 124 N.H. 565, 572, 474 A.2d 1006, 1010 (1984), and we need not accord deference to any findings based on such evidence.
  • Finlay v. Frederick 606 A.2d 1375 N.H. 1992
    Trial courts are given broad discretion in weighing witness testimony at trial.
  • Halliday v. Halliday 593 A.2d 233 N.H. 1991
    RSA 458:16-a, II (Supp. 1990); see also Parkhurst v. Gibson (Parkhurst), 133 N.H. 57, 63-64, 573 A.2d 454, 458 (1990) (equal division presumed equitable).
  • Miller v. Miller 578 A.2d 872 N.H. 1990
    As we recently explained in Parkhurst v. Gibson, 133 N.H. 57, 573 A.2d 454 (1990), however, absent fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or ambiguity, the parties’ intentions will be gleaned from the face of the agreement.