About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (July 2019 - April 2020)

handle is hein.ali/resdplltnt0035 and id is 1 raw text is: PROPERTY 2D: LANDLORD AND TENANT PART II. TENANT'S RIGHTS CHAPTER 6. CONDUCT OF LANDLORD OR THIRD PERSON INTERFERES WITH PERMISSIBLE USE § 6.2 Third Person Improperly in Possession of Leased Property on Date Tenant Entitled to Possession Ariz.2019. Corns. (a) and (b) cit. in sup. Customer who rented a birthday-party venue in a fenced-in area of a city park brought negligence and premises-liability claims against city and operator of the venue under a contract with city, alleging that she was injured when she stepped into a divot or depression in the park's pifiata area, which was located outside the fenced-in area. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants under the state's recreational-use statute. The court of appeals affirmed. This court reversed in part and remanded, holding that operator was not immune under the statute, because it was not a manager of land used for recreational purposes; while operator argued that it maintained the pifiata area, it lacked any authority to open or close the pifiata area for recreational use. The court cited Restatement Second of Property: Landlord and Tenant § 6.2 and Restatement of Property § 450 in reasoning that all of the other persons or entities granted immunity under the statute-including tenants, lessees, and easement-had the power to exclude or otherwise control access to the property. Normandin v. Encanto Adventures, LLC, 441 P.3d 439, 442. PART V. POWERS OF APPOINTMENT CHAPTER 14. EXPIRATION OF TERM OF LEASE-TENANT HOLDS OVER TITLE A. REMEDIES TO RECOVER POSSESSION FROM HOLDOVER TENANT § 14.1 Judicial Remedies Available for Recovery of Possession of Leased Property from a Tenant Improperly Holding Over After the Termination of His Lease Conn.2019. Stat. Note 1 cit. in sup. Defendant was charged with murder after police conducted a warrantless search of his apartment and discovered incriminating evidence. The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence from the search, finding that he did not have a subjective expectation of privacy in the apartment at the time of the search, which was conducted five days after he failed to pay the rent due on his month-to-month lease, and defendant was convicted by a jury. This court reversed and remanded, holding that defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his apartment five days after rent was due. The court cited Restatement Second of Property: Landlord and Tenant § 14.1 in noting that Connecticut had a comprehensive statutory scheme in place detailing the process through which a landlord could retake possession of leased property from a tenant, which defendant's landlord had not yet begun to pursue at the time of the search; moreover, defendant's landlord testified that he would have allowed defendant to stay if defendant paid his rent on the day of COPYRIGHT 02020 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.