Cited by

Graf, 143 N.H. at 303; McIntire v. Woodall, 140 N.H. 228, 230 (1995).

Appeal of Ann Miles Builder, 150 N.H. 315, 320 (2003) (stating that a judgment will not be disturbed for an error that did not affect the outcome below or cause the appealing party injury); McIntire v. Woodall, 140 N.H. 228, 230 (1995) (stating that a party will not prevail on a due process claim absent a showing of actual prejudice).

McIntire v. Woodall, 140 N.H. 228, 230 (1995) (lack of notice claim requires a showing of actual prejudice).

see McIntire v. Woodall, 140 N.H. 228, 230 (1995) (rejecting plaintiff’s due process argument when hearing was noticed as non- evidentiary, but plaintiff did not object to and participated in evidentiary hearing).

A party may not prevail upon a due process claim absent a showing of actual prejudice.

Moreover, to prevail on a due process claim, a party must show actual prejudice.

If, as the plaintiffs suggest, the defendant improperly supplemented the summary judgment record by submitting evidence at the summary judgment hearing in the form of an offer of proof, it was incumbent upon them to object to the “evidentiary proffer.” See McIntire v. Woodall, 140 N.H. 228, 230 (1995) (rejecting argument that trial court deprived plaintiff of due process by taking testimony at non-evidentiary hearing because plaintiff did not object to the taking of testimony); see also McIntire

See, e.g., McIntire v. Woodall, 140 N.H. 228, 231 (1995) (noting that if an agreement can be, and is, fully performed by one party within one year, “the agreement of the other party is not within the statute.” (quotation omitted)).

(finding plaintiff had “not identified anything he was unable to do via videoconference that he could have done had he been physically present in the courtroom”); cf. McIntire v. Woodall, 140 N.H. 228, 230 (1995) (explaining that, to prevail on a due process claim, plaintiff must demonstrate actual prejudice).

Even assuming, arguendo, that the defendant is correct that the petition did not adequately apprise him of the alleged abuse prior to the hearing, he will not prevail on his due process claim absent a showing of actual prejudice.

Assuming, arguendo, that Omega adequately developed its legal argument concerning its due process claims, we note that before we will evaluate a due process claim, Omega must show actual prejudice.

We affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the merits and held that the plaintiff failed to prove a due process violation because he did not show actual prejudice.

Graf, 143 N.H. at 303, 726 A.2d at 1277; McIntire v. Woodall, 140 N.H. 228, 230, 666 A.2d 934, 936 (1995) (to prevail on due process claim appealing party generally must demonstrate prejudice).

McIntire v. Woodall, 140 N.H. 228, 230, 666 A.2d 934, 936 (1995) (party’s failure to cure potential prejudice precludes finding of prejudice).

Finlay v. Frederick, 135 N.H. 482, 485, 606 A.2d 1375, 1376 (1992); see McIntire v. Woodall, 140 N.H. 228, 230, 666 A.2d 934, 936 (1995).