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
645 charsPenrich disputes this result on three grounds. First, Penrich suggests that our decision in Penrich I remanded the question of the permissibility of rent withholding absent a court order with regard to all tenants in the park withholding the rental increase. This interpretation misconstrues our earlier holding. We specifically stated that “it would be inappropriate to require the tenants to relitigate their complaints concerning [the eleven lots].” Id. The effect of accepting Penrich’s argument would be to require these tenants to relitigate their complaints as an affirmative defense under RSA 540:13-d, a result we rejected in Penrich I.