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
982 charsThe defendants argued that the trial justice acted properly and again alleged that plaintiff for strategic reasons had chosen not to appeal the District Court action that resulted in his eviction. The defendants claimed that by bringing the action in the Superior Court, plaintiff was trying to circumvent § 34-18-58, which allows an appeal in an action for recovery of real property to be dismissed for failure to pay rent as it becomes due during the pen-dency of the appeal. Further, defendants argued, as a statutory matter, a claim of retaliatory eviction may not form the basis for an independent action, and may be pleaded only as a defense in an action for possession. The defendants also alleged that all plaintiffs claims that were not raised in the original action should have been dismissed as compulsory counterclaims to the original action and that those claims that were actually litigated in the District Court were barred from further litigation as a matter of law.