Legal Opinion

Banks v. Adelman

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 27, 1956PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.

The plaintiffs, as tenants, brought this action under § 2231c of the 1953 Cumulative Supplement to recover from their landlord for rent charged in excess of the maximum prescribed by the act regulating rents in housing accommodations. Cum. Sup. 1953, e. 356. Section 2231c forbids the acceptance of a payment of rent in excess of the legal limit and gives to the tenant overcharged a right of recovery from his landlord for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as determined by the court, plus liquidated damages of either $50 or three times the amount of the excess collected, whichever is greater,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Davis v. MargolisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
  2. Cook v. LawlorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
  3. Chouinard v. Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
  4. Stults v. PalmerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
  5. Farkas v. HalliwellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1950

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Brockett v. JensenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
  2. Martin v. KavanewskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
  3. Brown v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1958
  4. L. Wayne Furtney v. Simsbury Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
  5. Cohen v. Holloways', Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1969

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API