Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Citation
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Parent Document
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire (state)
- Effective Date
- 1995-12-29
Other Sections in This Document (25)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
- Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
Full Text
725 charsIn Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 136 N.H. 621, 620 A.2d 1037 (1993) {Penrich I), we reversed in part the superior court’s order because evidence of alleged violations had been admitted without establishing that prior notice of the problems had been given to Penrich as required by RSA 205-A:15 (1989). Penrich I, 136 N.H. at 623, 620 A.2d at 1039. We affirmed the superior court’s order, however, with respect to lots 5, 6, 10, 117, 125, 128, 142, 166, 176, 181, and 196 (the eleven lots). Id. at 624, 620 A.2d at 1039. In addition, we specifically remanded the question of “whether tenants of a manufactured housing park are permitted to unilaterally withhold payment of rent without a court order authorizing such action.” Id.