White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- Citation
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- Parent Document
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire (state)
- Effective Date
- 2004-07-16
Other Sections in This Document (24)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
- White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman, 151 N.H. 251 (2004)
Full Text
508 charsBulman argues that the presumption applies because the notice to quit was served within the six-month window. Even assuming that this is *255trae, service of a notice to quit does not meet the statutory requirement of instituting a possessory action. See Hynes v. Hale, 146 N.H. 533, 539 (2001) (“Although the notice to quit may be a requisite step in the eviction process, it is not itself an eviction action.”) Thus, the district court correctly ruled that the presumption was inapplicable. II. Retaliation