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
873 charsOn appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial justice erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss, but he failed to provide this Court with any argument in support of his position that the Superior Court had jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs claims for damages. The plaintiff argued that his eviction from Mobile Village was retaliatory because he was a spokesperson for the tenants’ association there. He argued further: that he had not been allowed to present a defense in the District Court action; that it was improper for the trial justice in the Superior Court to have dismissed his suit for extortion and retaliation prior to discovery; and that he had been denied his constitutional rights of “redress” and due process. All plaintiffs claims and arguments are inextricably intertwined with the original District Court action that resulted in plaintiffs eviction.