Cited by

Co., 119 N.H. 285, 289 (1979); see also Nordic Inn Condo.

Co., 119 N.H. 285, 288-89, 402 A.2d 155, 157 (1979) (justice better served by prospective application of time guideline of former RSA 281:37,1, to future certiorari petitions under the workers’ compensation statute).

“Laches, unlike limitation, is not a mere matter of time, but is principally a question of the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced — an inequity founded on some change in the conditions or relations of the property or the parties involved.” Wood v. General Elec.

However, “‘[l]aches, unlike limitation, is not a mere matter of time, but is principally a question of the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced — an inequity founded on some change in the conditions or relations of the property or the parties involved.’” Wood v. General Elec.

Prior to Chauffeurs Local, we also applied a thirty-day rule in Wilson supra, and in Wood v. General Electric Co., 119 N.H. 285, 402 A.2d 155 (1979).

Co., 119 N.H. 285, 289, *385 402 A.2d 155, 157 (1979) (defense of laches requires proof of inequity of enforcing claim due to change in circumstances or relationships).

Unlike statutes of limitation, laches “is not a mere matter of time, but is principally a question of the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced— an inequity founded on some change in the conditions or relations of the property or the parties involved.” Wood v. General Elec.

“‘Laches, unlike limitation, is not a mere matter of time, but is principally a question of the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced — an inequity founded on some change in the conditions or relations of the property or the parties involved.’” Wood v. General Elec.

‘“Laches, unlike limitation, is not a mere matter of time, but is principally a question of the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced — an inequity founded on some change in the conditions or relations of the property or the parties involved.’” Wood v. General Elec.

Co., 119 N.H. 285, 288, 402 A.2d 155, 157 (1979); Chesley v. Estate of Chesley, 117 N.H. 280, 282, 372 A.2d 281, 283 (1977).

Co., 119 N.H. 285, 288, 402 A.2d 155, 157 (1979) (citing Wilson v. Personnel Comm’n, 117 N.H. 783, 784, 378 A.2d 1375, 1377 (1977)).

Co., 119 N.H. 285, 287-88, 402 A.2d 155, 157 (1979); Dodier v. State Dep’t of Labor, 117 N.H. 315, 317, 373 A.2d 341, 342 (1977).

The plaintiffs suffered no inequity, prejudice, or surprise, especially because they “knew all along that [the defendant] was attempting to pursue his claim.” Wood v. General Elec.

Co., 119 N.H. 285, 288-89, 402 A.2d 155, 157 (1979); cf. Dearborn v. Town of Milford, 120 N.H. 82, 85, 411 A.2d 1132, 1134 (1980).

Co., 119 N.H. 285, 289, 402 A.2d 155, 158 (1979); Dodier v. Dep’t of Labor, 117 N.H. 315, 317, 373 A.2d 341, 342 (1977).