Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Citation
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Parent Document
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 1987-04-02
Other Sections in This Document (40)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
Full Text
526 charslimiting the reach of the statute to its express language, i.e., prohibiting only counterclaims for damages in an action brought by a tenant to recover a security deposit, would render it meaningless as a deterrent to landlords’ flouting the security deposit law; and (3) since a landlord’s claim for damages in an action brought by a tenant to recover a security deposit would otherwise be a compulsory counterclaim, the Legislature has effectively barred a landlord from ever bringing a claim, directly or by counterclaim. 2