“The court may take such action as it deems just under the circumstances, including . . . granting a continuance of the trial or hearing." (See State v. Stickney (2002) 148 N.H. 232, 237.)
Stated differently, “the court having jurisdiction of the matter [can] grant any necessary or reasonable continuance.” (See State v. Dolbeare (1995) 140 N.H. 84, 87.)
Continuances and postponements are governed under Rule 1.8-A of the New Hampshire Circuit Court Rules –District Division.
“All motions for continuance shall be in writing, signed by the moving party stating the reasons therefor and stating that the opposing party does not desire a hearing on the motion, if such is the case.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Dist. Div. 1.8-A(a).)
“No motion for continuance shall be granted without a hearing unless approval of the opposing party is obtained. The moving party shall have the burden of obtaining such approval.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Dist. Div. 1.8-A(b).)
“Agreement of the parties shall constitute a waiver of hearing on a motion to continue; but notwithstanding agreement of the parties, the Court shall exercise its sound discretion in granting such continuances.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Dist. Div. 1.8-A(c).)
“All motions for continuance or postponement in a civil action shall be signed and dated by counsel. Other counsel wishing to join in any motion shall do so in writing. Each motion shall contain a certificate by counsel that the client has been notified of the reasons for the continuance or postponement, has assented thereto either orally or in writing, and has been forwarded a copy of the motion.” (N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Dist. Div. 1.8-A(d).)
“In exceptional situations, motions to continue may be made orally in accordance with these rules and shall be effective as such, but it shall be the burden of the moving party to establish a record thereof by confirming such request in writing. Only attorneys, police prosecutors, or parties pro se, shall be permitted to continue orally.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Dist. Div. 1.8-A(e).)
“The decision to grant or deny a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (See State v. Czekalski (2017) 169 N.H. 732, 740; State v. Addison (2010) 160 N.H. 792, 795, 8 A.3d 118.)
“We will not overturn that decision unless it constitutes an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” (See id.)
“The denial of the continuance does not call for extended consideration. Setting a trial date is a matter within the sound discretion of a trial court, as is any ruling on a motion for continuance based on a claim of good cause.” (See Tenn v. 889 Associates, Ltd. (1985) 127 N.H. 321, 325; Moore v. Aksten (1983) 123 N.H. 220, 221, 459 A.2d 266, 267.)
“A decision on a motion to continue will therefore not be held erroneous unless it is clear that the [trial] court either did not consider the Motion or Objection on its merits or that injustice will definitely result from the court's decision." (See id.)
It is well settled that pursuant to the New Hampshire Compensation Board, “continuances of any hearing are discouraged; however, should a continuance be necessary, the parties requesting such continuance shall file with the department a written petition for such continuance at least 7 days prior to the hearing.” (See Appeal of Robert Belair (2009) 158 N.H. 273, 278.)
As such, it is also well settled that “failure to file such a petition shall bar any right to a continuance. Thereafter, a continuance may only be granted upon the commissioner's finding that a compelling need exists so as to require a continuance. Whether discouraged or not, continuances are clearly permitted under RSA 281-A:43, I(a).” (See id.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
