RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- Citation
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- Parent Document
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire (state)
- Effective Date
- 2004-11-30
Other Sections in This Document (21)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
- RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497 (2004)
Full Text
698 chars*499Edwards appeals the denial of his motion to compel. “A decree granting specific relief is not a matter of right, but rests in the sound discretion of the trial court according to the circumstances of the case.” Shakra v. Benedictine Sisters, 131 N.H. 417, 421 (1989) (quotations and brackets omitted). Thus, we review the trial court’s ruling under the unsustainable exercise of discretion standard. See State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001). “To be reversible on appeal, the discretion must have been exercised for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable to the prejudice of the objecting party.” Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 704 (2004) (quotation omitted).