Cited by

Because the Club failed to receive site plan approval for the south-north shooting range, “it was illegal and therefore ineligible to later qualify as a lawful nonconforming use.” Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 664 (2000).

Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 666 (2000).

“Accordingly, the doctrine is applied against a municipality with caution and only in exceptional cases under circumstances clearly demanding its application to prevent manifest injustice.” Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 666 (2000) (quotation omitted).

Ray’s Stateline Market v. Town of Pelham, 140 N.H. 139, 143 (1995); see Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 664 (2000) (stating that the State Constitution and state statute “both recognize that an established use of land is not disturbed by a subsequent land restriction”).

State v. Lake Winnipesaukee Resort, 159 N.H. 42, 47 (2009) (calling into question the precedential value of Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660 (2000), which had erroneously relied upon a preliminary section of State v. Company, 49 N.H. 240 (1870)).

Contrary to the respondents’ contention, we did not repudiate nullum tempus in Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660 (2000).

(brackets and quotation omitted); see Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 664 (2000).

Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 668 (2000).

Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 668 (2000).

I. Doctrine of Laches “Laches is an equitable doctrine that bars litigation when a potential plaintiff has slept on his rights.” Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 668 (2000) (quotation omitted).

“Laches is an equitable doctrine that bars litigation when a potential plaintiff has slept on his rights.” Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 668 (2000) (quotation omitted).

Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 664 (2000).

Equitable estoppel “serves to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon.” Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 666 (2000) (quotation omitted).

In New Hampshire, “[e]quitable estoppel serves to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon.” Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 666 (2000) (quotation omitted).

Although estoppel may be invoked against a town, it must be applied “with caution and only in exceptional cases under circumstances clearly demanding its application to prevent manifest injustice.” Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 666 (2000) (quotation omitted).

t property has been continuous and essentially unchanged since the 1950’s [and that the testimony regarding the use] for stockpiling was uncontroverted.” “We sustain the findings *330 and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidential support or tainted by error of law and we review the record in the light most favorable to the defendants.” Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 661 (2000) (quotation and citation omitted).

Appeal of Cote, 139 N.H. 575, 580 (1995); see also Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 666 (2000).

“We sustain the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidential support or tainted by error of law.” Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management, 144 N.H. 660, 661, 745 A.2d 1155, 1157 (2000) (quotation and citation omitted).