Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Citation
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-11-21
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
Full Text
755 charsIn the eviction proceeding for non-payment of rent, Sherryland argues that the trial court erred by: (1) awarding the defendant damages; (2) violating its constitutional right to prompt justice without delay; and (3) failing to find that the defendant had violated park rules, thus permitting Sherryland to eliminate the incentive discount. In the park closure eviction proceeding, Sherryland contends that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to grant its motion to recuse; (2) ruling that its notice to quit did not comply with the requirements of RSA chapter 205-A; (3) ruling that the eviction action for non-payment of rent constituted an election of remedies; and (4) ruling that res judicata principles barred the park closure eviction proceeding.