Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Citation
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Parent Document
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2012-12-20
Other Sections in This Document (54)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
- Goodwin v. Franklin (2012)
Full Text
516 chars7
Here, Tenants have made no showing of any false representation or deceptive act
by Landlord that was likely to mislead consumers. The interruption in the flow of water
started approximately five months after the initiation of the oral lease agreement, not
from the outset. Furthermore, as the findings of fact and conclusions of law demonstrate,
the interruption to the flow of water was a means of illegal eviction, not fraudulent in
nature. Accordingly, this claim is denied. Health Code—18 V.S.A. § 122