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
476 charsHere, the district division found that “Friedline was filing the [eviction notice] on behalf of both owners of the premises.” The defendant presents no argument – beyond the lack of Kellogg-Roe’s signature on the eviction notice – that Kellogg-Roe did not consent to the eviction. Consequently, we conclude that the district division correctly ruled that the lack of Kellogg-Roe’s signature on the eviction notice did not require dismissal of the action. Vacated and remanded.