*1 THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2023-0507, Ellen Merrill-Pugsley & a. v. Rebecca Dalida, the court on June 17, 2024, issued the following order:
The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted on appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The plaintiffs, Ellen Merrill-Pugsley and George Pugsley, appeal the order of the Superior Court (Delker, J.), entering summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Rebecca Dalida. The plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by ruling that the defendant was not liable for their injuries under RSA 466:19 (2018) because, as a matter of law, her dog’s conduct was not “mischievous . ” The plaintiffs argue, among other things, that the court erroneously required proof of the dog’s mis chievous intent. The defendant cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiff did not qualify as the keeper of the dog, precluding liability.
As the appealing parties, the plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our review of the trial court’s well -reasoned order, the plaintiffs’ challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Given our decision, we need not reach the issue raised in the defendant’s cross-appeal. See Antosz v. Allain, 163 N.H. 298, 302 (2012) (declining to address parties’ other argument s where holding on one issue is dispositive).
Affirmed.
MacDonald, C.J., and Bassett, Hantz Marconi, Donovan, and Countway, JJ., concurred.
Timothy A. Gudas, Clerk