It would be pretty difficult to make stick. It is, after all, the landlord's property. And I'm sure the lease allows them access to inspect and repair and those sorts of things. But there is also likely to be some wording to the affect of 'reasonable access' and 'prior notice.' And if they were showing up in your bedroom at 2 in the morning, there might be something to it. Trespass is not likely the charge, but there are other torts that might fit the situation better.
Yes, absolutely! While the landlord may "own" the property, he does not "possess" the property while you are the tenant. Thus, entry upon your property without permission or valid excuse is (legally) trespass, and probably also a violation of the lease agreement (if you have one). In many cases you can obtain a rent abatement for every day on which you were denied the value of your property rights (not to mention restitution for any damages caused during the uninvited visit), and you may obtain an injunction to prevent further violations to your privacy.
You can sue the landlord for slander.
If you can prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the landlord was the person who in fact opened your mail and stole your check you may freely sue them. You may also be entitled to pursue criminal charges for Mail tampering, check theft, check fraud, theft, etc.
You need to check your lease. If you're landlord is responsible for cutting the grass and other landscaping maitanence than yes you can sue the landlord. But if you are responsible for cutting the grass and plowing the drive than no.
You sue a landlord in which ever state you signed the lease and retained the property in. If the landlord resides in Toledo, Ohio and you rent a property and signed your lease in Monroe, Michigan, you sue in Monroe, Michigan. However, if your lease specifies that any civil proceedings must take place in the landlords state of residency, you're bound by the contract to file suit in the landlords state of residency.
In some states, the lease survives the sale; in others, it does not. Regardless, the landlord certainly has the right to sell.
The landlord could sue the decedent's estate.
You cannot sue your landlord unless you suffered damages due to his negligence.
See answer to related question, "Can a tenant sue a landlord for trespass?"
Landlord can keep deposit and sue tenant's estate if damages to the apartment was done outside of normal wear and tear.
Well, I don't see how anyone can be sewn: I guess it can happen if the right string is used for sewing. Are you talking about SUING? Can a Landlord SUE you after you leave the house? Well, the landlord cannot sue for eviction if you're already gone. If you have damaged the property the landlord can sue for damages, and normally within two years, but this varies by state. Check with the Clerk of Courts or Prothonotary.
You can get (sue) anyone for slander: your landlord is no different.
You cannot really sue your landlord for unfit habitation. If your rental unit is deemed unfit for habitation you may simply move out. If you are in the middle of the lease, and the dwelling is unfit for habitation, you have the right to move out under what is known as constructive eviction, meaning that you are abandoning the premises because you cannot live there. Your landlord may try to keep the security deposit if he is holding one for you. You must then sue the landlord to reclaim it.
Sure.
Your landlord can evict you and sue for back rent.
You can only sue in small claims court for damages. Landlord and tenant cases are only opened by landlords, not the tenant. If, under constructive eviction clause, you exercise your right to move out of that property and the landlord keeps your security deposit and any other payments you made before moving into the property - except for the first months rent unless that's when you're moving out, then you have the right to sue the landlord to reclaim that money.
Yes the landlord can be sued for breaking the lease.
It depends. If the sub-tenant was there by right and the landlord allowed a sub-lease, then that's a situation where nothing has gone wrong. If the landlord is suing, it sounds instead like the tenant did not have the right to sublet and in that case they are responsible to complete the lease and the sub-tenant may not have had the right to be there.