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 Goodwin v. James, 595 A.2d 504.

14 citing documents.

  • Dillman v. New Hampshire College 838 A.2d 1274 N.H. 2003
    *434 A trial court may grant a motion for a directed verdict only if it determines, after considering the evidence and construing all inferences therefrom most favorably to the non-moving party, that no rational juror could conclude that the non-moving party is entitled to any relief.
  • Allen v. Dover Co-Recreational Softball League 807 A.2d 1274 N.H. 2002
    The defendants thus have a duty to promulgate or enforce rules that minimize the risk of injury, if without those rules the game is otherwise unreasonably dangerous.
  • Emerson v. Bentwood 769 A.2d 403 N.H. 2001
    “We will uphold the trial court’s ruling on a motion for directed verdict when the record supports the conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that no rational juror could find for the non-moving party.” Goodwin v. James, 134 N.H. 579, 583 (1991) (quotation and brackets omitted).
  • Kellner v. Lowney 761 A.2d 421 N.H. 2000
  • National Employment Service Corp. v. Olsten Staffing Service, Inc. 761 A.2d 401 N.H. 2000
    The trial court may direct a verdict “only if [it] determines, after considering the evidence and construing all inferences therefrom most favorably to the non-moving party, that no rational juror could conclude that the non-moving party is entitled to any relief.” Goodwin v. James, 134 N.H. 579, 582, 595 A.2d 504, 506 (1991).
  • Powell v. Catholic Medical Center 749 A.2d 301 N.H. 2000
  • Ahrendt v. Granite Bank 740 A.2d 1058 N.H. 1999
    “A motion for directed verdict may be granted only if the trial court determines, after considering the evidence and construing all inferences therefrom most favorably to the non-moving party, that no rational juror could conclude that the non-moving party is entitled to any relief.” Goodwin v. James, 134 N.H. 579, 582, 595 A.2d 504, 506 (1991).
  • Goss v. State 714 A.2d 225 N.H. 1998
    Goodwin v. James, 134 N.H. 579, 583, 595 A.2d 504, 507 (1991); see LeFavor v. Ford, 135 N.H. 311, 315, 604 A.2d 570, 573 (1992) (noting that resulting injury must be foreseeable consequence of defendant’s conduct).
  • Hancock v. R.A. Earnhardt Textile Machinery Division, Inc. 653 A.2d 558 N.H. 1995
    *358 “A motion for directed verdict may be granted only if the trial court determines, after considering the evidence and construing all inferences therefrom most favorably to the non-moving party, that no rational juror could conclude that the non-moving party is entitled to any relief.” Goodwin v. James, 134 N.H. 579, 582, 595 A.2d 504, 506 (1991).
  • Simpson v. Calivas 650 A.2d 318 N.H. 1994
    I. Duty to Intended Beneficiaries In order to recover for negligence, a plaintiff must show that “there exists a duty, whose breach by the defendant causes the injury for which the plaintiff seeks to recover.” Goodwin v. James, 134 N.H. 579, 583, 595 A.2d 504, 507 (1991).
  • Doucette v. Town of Bristol & a. 635 A.2d 1387 N.H. 1993
    The existence of a duty under particular circumstances “depends on what risks, if any, are reasonably foreseeable.” Goodwin v. James, 134 N.H. 579, 583, 595 A.2d 504, 507 (1991).
  • Walls v. Oxford Management Co. 633 A.2d 103 N.H. 1993
    Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 304, 605 A.2d 208, 213 (1992); Goodwin v. James, 134 N.H. 579, 583, 595 A.2d 504, 506-07 (1991); Paquette v. Joyce, 117 N.H. 832, 837, 379 A.2d 207, 210 (1977).
  • Butler v. Walker Power, Inc. 629 A.2d 91 N.H. 1993
    The trial court is permitted to direct a verdict “only if [it] determines, after considering the evidence and construing all inferences therefrom most favorably to the non-moving party, that no rational juror could conclude that the non-moving party is entitled to any relief.” Goodwin v. James, 134 N.H. 579, 582, 595 A.2d 504, 506 (1991).
  • Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp. 605 A.2d 208 N.H. 1992
    “In order to recover for negligence, a plaintiff must show that ‘there exists a duty, whose breach by the defendant causes the injury for which the plaintiff seeks to recover.’” Goodwin v. James, 134 N.H. 579, 583, 595 A.2d 504, 507 (1991) (quoting Rounds v. Standex International, 131 N.H. 71, 76, 550 A.2d 98, 101 (1988)); see also W. Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 30, at 164-65 (5th ed. 1984).