Legal Opinion

Mahoney v. Town of Canterbury

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided October 18, 2005No. 2004-507Published

1Opinion of the CourtDalianis, J.

Defendant Fortin & Redmond Associates (F & R) appeals a ruling of the Superior Court {Fitzgerald, J.) denying it recovery of overhead expenses incurred due to an injunction that the plaintiffs, Catherine and Everett Mahoney, wrongfully procured. The plaintiffs cross-appeal a ruling of the trial court granting F & R an award of lost *642profits due to that injunction. We affirm in part, vacate in part and remand.

This case returns to us after remand to the trial court. See Mahoney v. Town of Canterbury, 150 N.H. 148, 155 (2008). We set forth the background of this case in Mahoney and need not…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mahoney v. Town of CanterburySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2003
  2. Klar v. MitoulasSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API