Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Citation
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Parent Document
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 1999-05-14
Other Sections in This Document (29)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
- Garganta v. Mobile Village, Inc., 730 A.2d 1 (1999)
Full Text
424 charsAlthough plaintiffs request for injunc-tive relief was denied, his request for damages had not yet been addressed. The defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to “12(b), of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure,” arguing that plaintiff could have raised the issue of retaliatory eviction as a defense in the original District Court action and that his failure to do so barred him from raising it at any subsequent time. 2