Legal Opinion

Kusky v. Laderbush

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided July 6, 1950No. 3955PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLampron, J.

The Trial Court denied the motion after consideration of the allegations therein made by the defendant. This form of proceeding was accepted by both parties without objection and it is now too late for either of them to object to it. Vidal v. Errol, 86 N. H. 585, 586; Morrill v. Bank, 90 N. H. 358, 359.

The question before this court for decision is whether the Trial Court’s finding could reasonably be made on the evidence before him. Wisutskie v. Malouin, 88 N. H. 242, 246; Romano v. Company, 95 N. H. 404, 406; Small v. Company, ante, 265.

If the interests of justice demanded it, the Trial…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Matter of Currier (Woodlawn Cemetery)New York Court of Appeals · 1949
  2. Ullendorff v. BrownSupreme Court of Florida · 1945
  3. Sexson v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931
  4. State v. WoodSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1928

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Mills v. CAROLINA CEMETERY PARK CORPORATIONSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  2. In Re Proposed Disinterment of JarvisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953
  3. Holm v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  4. Salmonsen v. Town of RindgeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1973
  5. Stastny v. TachovskyNebraska Supreme Court · 1964

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API