Murphy v. Baez, 515 A.2d 383 (1986)
- Citation
- Murphy v. Baez, 515 A.2d 383 (1986)
- Parent Document
- Murphy v. Baez, 515 A.2d 383 (1986)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1986-03-24
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360686/murphy-v-baez/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (26)
- Murphy v. Baez, 515 A.2d 383 (1986)
- Murphy v. Baez, 515 A.2d 383 (1986)
- Murphy v. Baez, 515 A.2d 383 (1986)
- Murphy v. Baez, 515 A.2d 383 (1986)
- Murphy v. Baez, 515 A.2d 383 (1986)
- Murphy v. Baez, 515 A.2d 383 (1986)
- Murphy v. Baez, 515 A.2d 383 (1986)
- Murphy v. Baez, 515 A.2d 383 (1986)
- Murphy v. Baez, 515 A.2d 383 (1986)
- Murphy v. Baez, 515 A.2d 383 (1986)
- Section 47a-20a
- Section 47a-20a
- Section 47a-20a
- Section 47a-20a
- Section 47a-20a
- Section 47a-20a
- Section 47a-20a
- Section 47a-20a
- Section 47a-20a
- Section 47a-20a
- Section 47a-20a
- Section 47a-20a
- Section 47a-20a
- Section 47a-20a
- Section 47a-20a
- Section 47a-20a
Full Text
506 charsThe allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint as admitted by the defendant, indicate that on March 1, 1985, the parties entered into a month to month parol lease of a rental unit known as apartment number 3, 113 North Street, Stamford. The defendant took possession of the premises on that date and on November 20, 1985, the plaintiff caused her to be served with a notice to quit possession on or before December 1,1985. The reason set out in the notice to quit is expiration of the lease by lapse of time.