Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Citation
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Parent Document
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2012-06-26
Other Sections in This Document (97)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
Full Text
1,702 charsTo determine the scope of § 21-80a (b)(1), we turn to the requirement that a park owner show that the resident is "using the dwelling unit or the premises... for a purpose which is in violation of the rental agreement...." "[W]e are mindful that [i]t is a basic tenet of statutory construction that the legislature [does] not intend to enact meaningless provisions.... [I]n construing statutes, we presume that there is a purpose behind every sentence, clause, or phrase used in an act and that no part of a statute is superfluous.... Because [e]very word and phrase [of a statute] is presumed to have meaning... [a statute] must be construed, if possible, such that no clause, sentence or word shall be superfluous, void or insignificant." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Podiatric Medical Assn. v. Health Net of Connecticut, Inc., 302 Conn. 464, 474, 28 A.3d 958 (2011). Although neither § 21-80a nor the Mobile Manufactured Home Parks Act, of which § 21-80a is a part, defines the meaning of the phrase "using the dwelling unit or the premises," the rule against superfluity prohibits us from according such a broad interpretation to § 21-80a (b)(1) that the phrase is rendered meaningless. For instance, a broad interpretation of § 21-80a (b)(1) permitting eviction, notwithstanding a resident's protected conduct, whenever the resident *635 has violated any term of the rental agreement would read the language "using the dwelling unit or the premises" out of the statute. The provision would have the same meaning and effect as an exception that stated simply that a park owner could maintain a summary process action "if the resident is in violation of the rental agreement."