laches doctrine in New Hampshire

2018Miner v. A & C Tire Co., 146 N.H. 631, 633 (2001).

2014See Miner v. A & C Tire Co., 146 N.H. 631, 634 (2001) (affirming trial court conclusion that laches did not bar relief, in part, because plaintiffs delay in filing suit did not further prejudice defendants and defendants benefited from delay).

1991Application of the doctrine of laches is ‘“a question of fact for the trier of fact,”’ Estate of Younge v. Huysmans, 127 N.H. 461, 466 , 506 A.2d 282, 285 (1985) (quoting North Bay Council, Inc. v. Grinnell, 123 N.H. 321, 325 , 461 A.2d 114, 116 (1983)), and the decision of the trial court will not be overruled unless unsupported by the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law, Moore v. Conifer Corp., 130 N.H. 795, 798 , 547 A.2d 298, 300 (1988); see N.H.

1991Application of the doctrine of laches is ‘“a question of fact for the trier of fact,”’ Estate of Younge v. Huysmans, 127 N.H. 461, 466 , 506 A.2d 282, 285 (1985) (quoting North Bay Council, Inc. v. Grinnell, 123 N.H. 321, 325 , 461 A.2d 114, 116 (1983)), and the decision of the trial court will not be overruled unless unsupported by the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law, Moore v. Conifer Corp., 130 N.H. 795, 798 , 547 A.2d 298, 300 (1988); see N.H.

2016They assert that “the facts of this case overwhelmingly] support a finding that the [defendants] sat on their rights for more than 35 years” in that they “never sought to use the Property as common land, never sought to form the Association, and never sought to enforce the Declaration.” “Laches is an equitable doctrine that bars litigation when a potential plaintiff has slept on his rights.” Appeal of Prof’l Fire Fighters of Hudson, 167 N.H. 46, 57 (2014) (quotation omitted).

2009But cf. Appeal of City of Laconia, 150 N.H. at 95 (affirming public employee labor relations board’s dismissal of a petition for modification on laches grounds); Appeal of Naswa Motor Inn, 144 N.H. 89, 91 (1999) (“Where no statutory time limitations apply to an administrative proceeding, whether an action is barred by time depends on the equitable doctrine of laches.”); Appeal of Cloutier Lumber Co., 121 N.H. 420, 422 (1981) (applying estoppel in workers’ compensation case brought under prior statute).

2009But cf. Appeal of City of Laconia, 150 N.H. at 95 (affirming public employee labor relations board’s dismissal of a petition for modification on laches grounds); Appeal of Naswa Motor Inn, 144 N.H. 89, 91 (1999) (“Where no statutory time limitations apply to an administrative proceeding, whether an action is barred by time depends on the equitable doctrine of laches.”); Appeal of Cloutier Lumber Co., 121 N.H. 420, 422 (1981) (applying estoppel in workers’ compensation case brought under prior statute).

2006Owners’ Assoc. v. Ventullo, 151 N.H. 571, 576-77 (2004) (reviewing decision on equitable doctrine of laches).

2005State v. Weeks, 134 N.H. 237, 240 (1991).

2003The doctrine of laches “is not a mere matter of time, but is principally a question of the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced.” Id. at 668 (quotation omitted).

2003We consider four factors in our analysis: (1) “the knowledge of the plaintiffs”; (2) “the conduct of the defendants”; (3) “the interests to be vindicated”; and (4) “the resulting prejudice.” Id.

2000Because it is an equitable doctrine, laches will constitute a bar to suit only if the delay was unreasonable and prejudicial.” Healey, 140 N.H. at 241 , 665 A.2d at 368 (quotations and citation omitted).

2000Because it is an equitable doctrine, laches will constitute a bar to suit only if the delay was unreasonable and prejudicial.” Healey, 140 N.H. at 241 , 665 A.2d at 368 (quotations and citation omitted).

1999Appeal of Plantier, 126 N.H. 500, 504-05 , 494 A.2d 270, 272 (1985); see also Sahu v. Iowa Bd. of Medical Examiners, 537 N.W.2d 674, 676 (Iowa 1995) (general statute of limitations inapplicable to administrative proceedings protecting public interest).

1999Appeal of Plantier, 126 N.H. 500, 504-05 , 494 A.2d 270, 272 (1985); see also Sahu v. Iowa Bd. of Medical Examiners, 537 N.W.2d 674, 676 (Iowa 1995) (general statute of limitations inapplicable to administrative proceedings protecting public interest).

1999The defendant argued that the assumpsit action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, see RSA 508:4 (1997), and that the quantum meruit claim was barred by the doctrine of laches, see generally In re Estate of Laura, 141 N.H. 628, 635 , 690 A.2d 1011, 1016 (1997).

1999The defendant argued that the assumpsit action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, see RSA 508:4 (1997), and that the quantum meruit claim was barred by the doctrine of laches, see generally In re Estate of Laura, 141 N.H. 628, 635 , 690 A.2d 1011, 1016 (1997).

1999Appeal of Plantier, 126 N.H. 500, 504-05 , 494 A.2d 270, 272 (1985); see also Sahu v. Iowa Bd. of Medical Examiners, 537 N.W.2d 674, 676 (Iowa 1995) (general statute of limitations inapplicable to administrative proceedings protecting public interest).

1991Application of the doctrine of laches is ‘“a question of fact for the trier of fact,”’ Estate of Younge v. Huysmans, 127 N.H. 461, 466 , 506 A.2d 282, 285 (1985) (quoting North Bay Council, Inc. v. Grinnell, 123 N.H. 321, 325 , 461 A.2d 114, 116 (1983)), and the decision of the trial court will not be overruled unless unsupported by the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law, Moore v. Conifer Corp., 130 N.H. 795, 798 , 547 A.2d 298, 300 (1988); see N.H.

1991Application of the doctrine of laches is ‘“a question of fact for the trier of fact,”’ Estate of Younge v. Huysmans, 127 N.H. 461, 466 , 506 A.2d 282, 285 (1985) (quoting North Bay Council, Inc. v. Grinnell, 123 N.H. 321, 325 , 461 A.2d 114, 116 (1983)), and the decision of the trial court will not be overruled unless unsupported by the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law, Moore v. Conifer Corp., 130 N.H. 795, 798 , 547 A.2d 298, 300 (1988); see N.H.

1991Donuts, Inc. v. Skipitaris, 129 N.H. 774, 779 , 533 A.2d 351, 353 (1987) (stating that the trial court’s decision will not be overturned if supported by the evidence, especially when the trier of fact’s conclusion is bolstered with a view).

1991Donuts, Inc. v. Skipitaris, 129 N.H. 774, 779 , 533 A.2d 351, 353 (1987) (stating that the trial court’s decision will not be overturned if supported by the evidence, especially when the trier of fact’s conclusion is bolstered with a view).

1991Application of the doctrine of laches is ‘“a question of fact for the trier of fact,”’ Estate of Younge v. Huysmans, 127 N.H. 461, 466 , 506 A.2d 282, 285 (1985) (quoting North Bay Council, Inc. v. Grinnell, 123 N.H. 321, 325 , 461 A.2d 114, 116 (1983)), and the decision of the trial court will not be overruled unless unsupported by the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law, Moore v. Conifer Corp., 130 N.H. 795, 798 , 547 A.2d 298, 300 (1988); see N.H.

1991Application of the doctrine of laches is ‘“a question of fact for the trier of fact,”’ Estate of Younge v. Huysmans, 127 N.H. 461, 466 , 506 A.2d 282, 285 (1985) (quoting North Bay Council, Inc. v. Grinnell, 123 N.H. 321, 325 , 461 A.2d 114, 116 (1983)), and the decision of the trial court will not be overruled unless unsupported by the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law, Moore v. Conifer Corp., 130 N.H. 795, 798 , 547 A.2d 298, 300 (1988); see N.H.

1983The Rule Against Perpetuities provides that “no interest in property is good ‘unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.’” Emerson v. King, 118 N.H. at 687 , 394 A.2d at 54 (citation omitted).

1983The Rule Against Perpetuities provides that “no interest in property is good ‘unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.’” Emerson v. King, 118 N.H. at 687 , 394 A.2d at 54 (citation omitted).

1982Cote v. Cote, 94 N.H. 372, 374 , 54 A.2d 360, 362 (1947).

1982Cote v. Cote, 94 N.H. 372, 374 , 54 A.2d 360, 362 (1947).