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
817 charsIn the instant case, the Zullos instituted a summary process action in Natick District Court based on what they claimed to be material breaches of the lease. Their legal right to terminate the tenancy was therefore directly at issue in the district court proceeding. If there were terms of that tenancy which were invalid (for example, the transfer of the responsibility to pay electrical bills), or circumstances that legally prevented the Zullos from obtaining ajudgment of possession (for example, proof that they were acting in retaliation for Murray’s complaint about the Apartment’s condition) then Murray could have and should have brought those issues to the attention of the judge. To allow her to do so now would undermine the principles of finality that the doctrine of res judicata is designed to protect.