NHCaseLaw.com

DALIANIS, J. Pursuant to RSA 606:10 (2001), the State appeals an order of the Hooksett District Court (LaPointe, J.) dismissing a complaint against the defendant, Evelyn Bernard, for failure to obey a command at the scene of an emergency. See RSA 154:9 (2002). We reverse and remand.

GALWAY, J. The defendant, Christopher Legere, was convicted following a jury trial in Superior Court (McGuire, J.) of the second degree murder of John Denoncourt. See RSA 630:1-b, I(a), I(b) (2007). He appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of various witnesses. We affirm.

DALIANIS, J. The respondent, Jacqueline Salesky, appeals the final decree in her divorce from the petitioner, John Salesky, which was recommended by a Marital Master (Forrest, M.) and approved by the Superior Court (Hampsey, J.). We affirm.

Before the Court are several Motions in Limine seeking to exclude certain evidence and testimony, of certain witnesses. A hearing was held on November 29, 2007. By agreement, counsel appeared telephonically. The Court enters the following orders with respect to each motion.

This order addresses the defendants' three pending motions in limine; the first, a motion in limine to exclude evidence and testimony of other alleged retaliation, harassment, and/or termination beyond that alleged by the plaintiff, Jill Davidson; the second, a motion in limine to preclude expert witness testimony of Julie Moore; Esq.; and the third, an objection to the addendum and revised report submitted by Ms. Moore. The Court will address each in turn. The Court ruled from the bench during trial on these motions. This order affirms and supercedes the oral ruling.

Pending before the court is the defendant Frederick Allfrey's Motion in Limine to Limit Damages (court index 64), to which the plaintiff objects (court index 67). By his motion, the defendant seeks to exclude from damages any amount written off by the plaintiffs insurer.

This is a medical malpractice action brought by the plaintiffs, Philip J. ("Philip") and Catherine ("Catherine") Sica, against the defendants, John C. Britton, M.D. ("Dr. Britton") anal Surgical Associates of Rochester, P.C. The plaintiffs allege Dr. Britton negligently performed a surgery on Philip, causing injuries and losses to Philip and loss of consortium to Catherine. The defendants now move in limine to preclude the plaintiffs from introducing medical expenses written off by Philip's medical care providers. The plaintiffs object. Neither party has requested a hearing on this motion in limine, nor does the court find that a hearing would assist it in determining the pending issue. Accordingly, pursuant to Superior Court Rule 58, the court acts on the pending motion on the basis of the pleadings and record before it.

The plaintiff, Maida E. Demeule, commenced this negligence action against the defendant, Linda M. Morin-Binder, seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained from a motor vehicle accident in May 2004 ("the accident"). The plaintiff now moves in limine to introduce evidence at trail of medical bills written off by the plaintiffs medical care providers. The defendant objects, The plaintiff also moves to take videotaped depositions. The defendant assents in part. On January 8, 2007, the court held, a hearing on these matters. After a review of the parties' arguments and the applicable law, the court finds and rules as follows.

The Court held a hearing on August 13, 1997, for continued argument on pending motions. The plaintiff, the intervenor, and the co-respondent were represented by counsel. The defendant appeared pro se.

The Court conducted a hearing on pending Motions and issues the following Orders. 1. Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Police Officer's Opinion Testimony (index 27). This Motion requests that the Court preclude Alton Police Officer Glenna Heath, the investigating officer, from testifying as to her opinion as to the speed of the defendant's vehicle as well as the cause of the accident. At trial, Officer Heath will be permitted to testify as to her factual observations she made when she responded to the accident, including the condition of the road. If she is properly qualified, she may be permitted to testify as to her opinion as to whether defendant's speed was excessive given the conditions. Officer Heath will not be permitted to testify as to her opinion concerning the cause of the accident.