Section 15B
- Citation
- Section 15B
- Parent Document
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 1986-03-28
Other Sections in This Document (60)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Castenholz v. Caira, 490 N.E.2d 494 (1986)
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
Full Text
446 charsthe one hand, both calling for a return of the deposit, and subsection (7) on the other, calling, for treble damages and attorney’s fees. The former envision compliance by the landlord without the necessity for litigation. The latter envisions making the remedy by litigation financially feasible, and thus efficacious, where the landlord refuses to return the deposit on demand after failing to establish the separate account within thirty days.