Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped. Id. We agree with the trial court that the State derives no unfair advantage nor imposes any unfair detriment on the petitioners by challenging Willey’s status as a professional gambler, and thus his standing to contest the constitutionality of the Gambling Winnings Tax as applied to professional gamblers. Given that the interlocutory transfer request was denied by this court, the petitioners cannot show any particular unfair advantage to the State or unfair detriment to themselves in the case before the trial court that resulted from the State challenging Willey’s status as a professional gambler, whether or not such a position was inconsistent with the ITS. See In the Matter of Carr & Edmunds, 156 N.H. 498, 502-03 (2007) (<HOLDING>); cf. Kelleher v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that father failed to establish that any unfairness resulted from mothers allegedly inconsistent positions in seeking to modify child support pursuant to statutory right (B) holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity (C) holding that trial court properly assessed mothers attorneys fees as necessaries against father in case in which trial court ordered father to pay mothers attorneys fees as child support but did not state that the fees were necessaries (D) holding in modification suit in which no enforcement was ordered that trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering father to pay mothers attorneys fees as child support under the necessaries rule (E) holding that an illegitimate child is guaranteed a right of support from his father
Output (English): holding in modification suit in which no enforcement was ordered that trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering father to pay mothers attorneys fees as child support under the necessaries rule