Section 1942

Citation: Section 1942
Parent Document: Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2003-08-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2585536/drouet-v-superior-court/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (188)

Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942
Section 1942

Full Text

589 chars

The majority observes that neither the tenants nor the author of this opinion “has identified a single jurisdiction in this country that has sustained a retaliatory eviction defense—or what might more accurately be termed a retaliatory withdrawal defense—where a landlord seeks to take a building off *609the market.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 596.) The significance of this fact escapes me. It is equally true that the majority has not identified any jurisdiction that has upheld a retaliatory eviction on the grounds that the landlord intends to remove the dwelling from the rental market.