Legal Opinion

Sandberg v. Sandberg

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 3, 1924PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.

The trial court had power to grant the libelee’s motion to vacate the decree entered in the case, and reopen it for further hearing, if necessary to prevent injustice. “Whether justice required the reopening of the case for the introduction of the proffered evidence was a question of fact for the trial court.” Manchester Amusement Co. v. Conn, 80 N. H. 455, 460; Coffin v. Coffin, ante, 284; LaCoss v. Lebanon, 78 N. H. 413, 417. The evidence of the libelant heard by the court has not been transferred. Therefore this is peculiarly a case in which the decision of the trial court cannot be…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lacoss v. LebanonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1917
  2. Manchester Amusement Co. v. Conn.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1922

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gnirk v. GnirkSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1991
  2. Bussey v. BusseySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1949
  3. Rodrique v. RodriqueSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1973
  4. Geers v. GeersSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1949
  5. In the Matter of Terrie Harman and Thomas McCarronSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API