Cited by

We will not reverse on the ground of improper jury instructions unless “the instruction was both erroneous and prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appealing party.” Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (citation modified).

Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young

¶9 This court “will not disturb a trial court’s rulings on the exclusion or admission of evidence unless a clear abuse of discretion appears and prejudice results.” Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (emphasis added; citation omitted).

Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (“The issue of [] capacity to sue is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.”).

We review the court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice, Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, but we review the court’s interpretation of procedural rules de novo, ¶ 28 (App. 2017).

¶14 “We will not disturb a trial court’s rulings on the exclusion or admission of evidence unless a clear abuse of discretion appears and prejudice results.” Roaf v. Stephen S. Rebuck Consulting, LLC, ¶ 11 (2024) (quoting Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, ).

In addition, “[w]e will not disturb a trial court’s rulings on the exclusion or admission of evidence unless a clear abuse of discretion appears and prejudice results.” Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young

Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, John C. Lincoln Hosp.

¶19 As to when the interest began to accrue, the superior court relied on Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, –09 (1996), in which our supreme court stated, “[a]s a general rule, the trial judge should calculate prejudgment interest from the date the claim becomes due” except for cases, “involving unconditional money debts” where “prejudgment interest accrues from the date the plaintiff makes a demand.” We cannot say the

See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young

Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young

The superior court “has broad discretion when determining whether a witness is competent to testify as an expert.” Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young

Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young

See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (“We will not disturb a trial court’s rulings on the exclusion or admission of evidence unless a clear abuse of discretion appears and prejudice results.”).

Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young

DISCUSSION ¶8 We review an order of protection for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 10 (App. 2014), and review evidentiary rulings for a clear abuse of discretion and substantial prejudice, Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young

“[W]hen a party challenges a trial court’s jury instruction, 6 BENEDICT, et al. v. TOTAL TRANSIT, et al. Opinion of the Court reversal is justified only if the instruction was both erroneous and ‘prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appealing party.’” Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (emphasis added) (quoting Walters v. First Fed.

Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young

Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young

DISCUSSION ¶8 We review the order of protection for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 10 (App. 2014), and the evidentiary rulings are reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion and substantial prejudice, Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young

See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, ¶ 99 (App. 2007).

Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young

Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young

See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, Brown v. U.S. Fid.

Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (quoting Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 136).