FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- Citation
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- Parent Document
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 2009-11-05
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1993882/furlan-v-farrar/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (39)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
Full Text
622 charsThe trial justice further found that defendant did not send a termination letter to plaintiff and that plaintiff had not abandoned the premises as of the second phone call on October 6, 2006. The trial justice then determined that plaintiff was entitled to be awarded the sum of $625 — such sum being reflective of the rental value of the apartment from the period from October 6 through October 31, during which period the defendant landlord would not permit the plaintiff tenant to have access to the apartment. However, the trial justice then proceeded to offset that $625 amount by defendant’s advertising costs (viz.,