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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8091585/penrich-inc-v-sullivan/ ↗

Full Text

1,054 chars

The defendants next argue that the plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating the issue of whether the rent withholding was justified. They arrive at this conclusion by regarding the plaintiff’s petition for declaratory judgment as a separate action from their counterclaim to that petition, which, as this court acknowledged in Penrich I, was incorrectly treated by the superior court as a petition under RSA 205-A:15. We do not need to resolve the question of whether the petition for declaratory judgment and the counterclaim should be considered parts of the same litigation or separate actions. Our decision reversing and remanding the 1991 order with regard to the remaining tenants means that the issue of whether health and safety conditions affecting these tenants have been found to exist pursuant to RSA chapter 205-A has not been finally resolved on the merits in favor of the defendants. Collateral estoppel thus does not apply. See Daigle v. City of Portsmouth, 129 N.H. 561, 570, 534 A.2d 689, 693 (1987).

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text