retaliation — Search — Tenant Law Database

Schweiger v. Superior Court, 476 P.2d 97 (1970)

Schweiger v. Superior Court, 476 P.2d 97 (1970) California state

...Although the court expressed agreement with petitioner that the landlord’s rent increase and eviction action had been intended as retaliation against petitioner for as*511sorting his statutory rights, the court rejected, as a matter of law, petitioner’s defense...

Marvin v. Hodgson, 33 Cal. 2d 439 (1949)

Marvin v. Hodgson, 33 Cal. 2d 439 (1949) California state

Marvin v. Hodgson 33 Cal. 2d 439 Date filed: 1949-02-01 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5606977/marvin-v-hodgson/ --- 020lead by Schauer ---

Alfaro v. Waterhouse Management Corp. (2022)

Alfaro v. Waterhouse Management Corp. (2022) California state

...1012 [“we may consider whether Bonni’s various allegations supply the elements of a retaliation claim or merely provide context”].) The only viable cause of action for unlawful retaliation is the alleged violation of Civil Code section 1942.5, subdivision...

Custom Parking, Inc. v. Superior Court, 138 Cal. App. 3d 90 (1982)

Custom Parking, Inc. v. Superior Court, 138 Cal. App. 3d 90 (1982) California state

nant to repair, but retaliation for the tenant’s exercise of his duty to testify truthfully.

Section 520

Western Land Office, Inc. v. Cervantes, 175 Cal. App. 3d 724 (1985) California state

on substantially identical facts, our Supreme Court held that a tenant has a defense to an unlawful detainer action when the landlord’s motive is retaliation for the exercise of statutory rights under Civil Code *737

Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)

Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978) California state

Hale v. Morgan 584 P.2d 512 Date filed: 1978-09-28 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1160324/hale-v-morgan/ --- 020lead by Richardson --- Opinion

Kriz v. Taylor, 92 Cal. App. 3d 302 (1979)

Kriz v. Taylor, 92 Cal. App. 3d 302 (1979) California state

We, therefore, treat the case as one in which the dominant purpose of Landlord in terminating the tenancy, effective October 8, 1977, was retaliation against Tenant.

section 1942

Glaser v. Meyers, 137 Cal. App. 3d 770 (1982) California state

section 1942.5 seems internally inconsistent. That court construed subdivision (c) to enable a tenant to defend against an unlawful detainer action by alleging that the eviction was in retaliation for the lawful exercise of any rights under the law.

Hagge v. Drew, 27 Cal. 2d 368 (1945)

Hagge v. Drew, 27 Cal. 2d 368 (1945) California state

Hagge v. Drew 27 Cal. 2d 368 Date filed: 1945-12-14 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1114867/hagge-v-drew/ --- 010combined by Carter --- CARTER, J.

Hernandez v. Stabach, 145 Cal. App. 3d 309 (1983)

Hernandez v. Stabach, 145 Cal. App. 3d 309 (1983) California state

Civil Code section 1942.5, subdivision (a) in pertinent part provides: “(a) If the lessor retaliates against the lessee because of the exercise by the lessee *317

section 1942

Western Land Office, Inc. v. Cervantes, 175 Cal. App. 3d 724 (1985) California state

(Evid. Code, § 550, subd. (b), italics added.) In imposing the initial “burden of producing evidence” on the tenant who complains of retaliation under subdivision (c), the Legislature evidently intended that such tenant should have the burden of proof as

Berry v. Chaplin, 74 Cal. App. 2d 652 (1946)

Berry v. Chaplin, 74 Cal. App. 2d 652 (1946) California state

Berry v. Chaplin 74 Cal. App. 2d 652 Date filed: 1946-05-27 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2616982/berry-v-chaplin/ --- 020lead by Wilson ---

Section 1942

Winslett v. 1811 27th Ave., LLC, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 25 (2018) California state

Second, the court drew on authority from a wholly different context, but one presenting similar considerations to those at issue with landlord retaliation against tenants. Citing the seminal employee termination in violation of public policy case (Petermann v. International Brotherhood...

Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)

Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985) California state

Little v. Sanchez 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 Date filed: 1985-03-15 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5806940/little-v-sanchez/ --- 020lead by Gates --- Opinion

section 1942

Western Land Office, Inc. v. Cervantes, 175 Cal. App. 3d 724 (1985) California state

As originally drafted, subdivision (b) read as follows: “[¶] In an action brought by or against the tenant, the introduction of evidence which shows that an alleged act of retaliation occurred within 180 days after any of the events specified in...