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
574 charsThe defendants suggest that the withholding by the remaining tenants is nonetheless justified by this court’s affirmance of the superior court’s findings with respect to the eleven lots. In effect, the defendants ask us to construe RSA 205-A:17 so that the court may authorize withholding of rent by tenants who have not been shown to be affected by health and safety conditions pursuant to the procedural requirements of the statute, if a finding of health and safety hazards has been properly made for other tenants in the park. We reject this construction of the statute.