Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Citation
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Parent Document
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire (state)
- Effective Date
- 2014-05-16
Other Sections in This Document (26)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
Full Text
485 charsOn appeal, the defendant first argues that he properly asserted a plea of title and, consequently, the district division erred by not transferring the case to superior court. He further argues that the court exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling on the issues raised in his plea of title. The plaintiffs counter that the court did not err in declining to transfer the case to superior court because the defendant presented no evidence to support the claims asserted in his plea of title.