Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Citation
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Parent Document
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2005-12-20
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8356005/murray-v-zullo/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (28)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Section 5
- Section 5
- Section 5
- Section 5
Full Text
912 charsThe factual allegations that the plaintiff cites in support of these two counts include the following. First, the Apartment contained numerous violations of the State Sanitary Code, in breach of the warranty of habitability and of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. Second, the Zullos sent their Notice to Quit three days after the Apartment inspection finding sanitary code violations, thus creating a rebuttable presumption that her eviction was in retaliation for Murray’s complaints. Third, beginning in April 2003, the Zullos required Murray to pay the electric bill even though the Lease had provided that the Zullos pay; this transfer was therefore in violation of G.L.c. 186, §14. All ofthese allegations relate to the terms and conditions of her tenancy, which Murray could and should have litigated in the summary process action. *295They are therefore barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.