Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Citation
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Parent Document
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2010-06-15
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2099534/zapata-v-mora/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (23)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
Full Text
389 charsThe conduct of the plaintiff in locking out the defendant, while improper and ineffective, certainly did nothing to render the notice to quit ambiguous. More importantly, the court’s issuance of an order restoring the defendant to possession created no new right or privilege for him to occupy the premises but, rather, *794 restored the status quo ante. 3 See Karantonis v. East Hartford,