Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Citation
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Parent Document
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 1982-11-26
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2122714/glaser-v-meyers/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (59)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982)
- section 1942
- section 1942
Full Text
1,354 charsThe heart of this dispute was why plaintiff left defendants’ mobilehome park. According to plaintiff, the water supply at the park was frequently inadequate. When he complained, defendants served him with a notice of eviction. Although no unlawful detainer action was ever filed, eventually he was forced to vacate the premises because his wife’s health was so adversely affected by the notice of eviction. In other words, as a result of the retaliatory notice of eviction, he vacated involuntarily. Defendants’ version of the facts is different: water supply was satisfactory; plaintiff was served with a notice of eviction for failure to comply with park rules and for disruptive conduct; plaintiff left the park voluntarily. Whether plaintiffs action is for constructive or retaliatory eviction, it is apparent that recovery was being sought on the same general set of facts in either complaint. Moreover, defendants concede that the amended complaint did not state a completely new cause of action, and defendants have failed to establish how they were prejudiced by the amendment. Defendants state they were deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff as to defendants’ motives for serving him with the notice of eviction. Defendants fail to explain, however, what additional insight plaintiff might have offered into defendants’ motives.