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
432 charsA construction that avoids any redundancy between subsection (6) (a) and the last sentence of subsection (3) (a) does not seem possible. To say that the landlord “forfeit[s] his right to retain ... the security deposit” (subsection [6]) is the same as to say that “the tenant [is entitled] to immediate return of the security deposit” (subsection [3] [a]). There is no similar redundancy with respect to pars, (b), (c), (d), or (e).