Legal Opinion

Birkenhead v. Coombs

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided June 7, 1983No. 569-81PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.

This is an action for ejectment based upon an alleged failure to pay rent. Defendant, by way of counterclaim, sought relief for plaintiffs’ alleged breach of the implied warranty of habitability, for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, and for the costs of improvements which she had made to her apartment. After trial by jury, plaintiffs were awarded $585 for their claim of back rent, while defendant was awarded $168.50 for improvements made to the premises, $430 for breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and $500 actual/$750 punitive damages for plaintiffs’ intentional…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Watkins v. SowdersSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Park West Management Corp. v. MitchellNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
  3. Sheltra v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1978
  4. McKenna v. BeginMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1977
  5. Bolkum v. StaabSupreme Court of Vermont · 1975

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Boulton v. CLD Consulting Engineers, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2003
  2. Crump v. P & C Food Markets, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1990
  3. Detling v. EdelbrockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1984
  4. Hilder v. St. PeterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1984
  5. Coty v. Ramsey Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1988

16 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