State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- Citation
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- Parent Document
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 1999-05-27
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
Full Text
832 charsIn December, 1995, the state notified the tenants by letter that their tenancies would be terminated. In response, the tenants filed a complaint in the United States District Court alleging that they could not be evicted without good cause and that the state’s action violated various constitutional rights. The United States District Court, after finding that the leases constituted month-to-month tenancies and that the state had complied with the relevant eviction procedures, dismissed all of the federal claims and declined to rule on the state claims. Meanwhile, the state filed eviction actions against the eleven tenants in the Third Division District Court. In addition to their defense that the 1995 leases were unlawful, the tenants asserted that the evictions constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of § 34-18-46.