California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Nesbitt v. Reddish, B251741 (Cal. App. 2016):
which they are leased and deprived plaintiffs of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises" and "constituted such a disturbance of plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the premises that plaintiff was forced to quit and vacate the premises." Nothing in the complaint suggested that the second cause of action was for anything but common law wrongful eviction. (See generally Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1039 [elements of common law wrongful eviction are plaintiff's possession of premises and defendant's forcible entry]; Glaser v. Meyers (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 770, 773-774.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.