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
547 charsThe defendant contends that plaintiff had a month-to-month tenancy and that, accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to damages because she did not provide the requisite thirty days notice to terminate her tenancy as he contends is required under G.L.1956 § 34 — 18—37(b). The defendant asserts that plaintiff was not entitled to the return of her security deposit — because, in his view, plaintiff owed rent for an additional thirty days after she called defendant on October 6, 2006 to notify him that she would not be able to take the apartment.