Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A dispute arose regarding the sale of property located at 301 Harris Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island. The plaintiff, 1100 North Main LLC, sought to purchase property from the Providence Firefighters Realty Corp. (the Firefighters), contingent on the Firefighters acquiring replacement property. The Firefighters entered into negotiations with the defendant, Shoreby Hill Properties, Inc., to purchase the Harris Avenue property. After several communications, the Firefighters signed a draft purchase and sales agreement for the property, but the defendant refused to execute it and reportedly accepted another offer. The plaintiff then filed a complaint seeking declaratory, equitable, or monetary relief based on the alleged contract, and recorded two notices of lis pendens against the Harris Avenue property.In the Providence County Superior Court, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, quash the lis pendens, and sought sanctions. The plaintiff argued that the attorneys’ communications constituted assent and that a purported assignment from the Firefighters gave the plaintiff standing. Before the Superior Court justice issued a decision, the plaintiff attempted to amend its complaint to add factual allegations and clarify standing. The trial justice dismissed the complaint and quashed the lis pendens, finding that the allegations failed to satisfy the statute of frauds and did not establish standing. The motion to amend was denied as futile, as no enforceable contract was found.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed whether a binding contract existed under the statute of frauds and whether denial of the motion to amend was proper. The Supreme Court held that the unsigned purchase and sales agreement did not satisfy the statute of frauds and no binding contract existed. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of the complaint, quashing of the lis pendens, and denial of the motion to amend. View "1100 North Main LLC v. Shoreby Hill Properties, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed a domestic-abuse complaint in Rhode Island District Court, alleging that the defendant forced her to engage in sexual relations by force or duress. An ex parte temporary protective order was issued, prohibiting contact and requiring the defendant to surrender firearms. Following a hearing, the District Court granted a final order of protection for three years, continuing the firearm restrictions under relevant Rhode Island statutes.The defendant appealed to the Kent County Superior Court, which held a de novo bench trial. At trial, the judge stated he would apply a clear and convincing evidence standard, rather than the preponderance of the evidence standard typically used in civil cases, due to the temporary deprivation of the defendant’s firearm rights. The judge concluded that the plaintiff did not meet this higher burden of proof, found the defendant’s evidence more credible, and dismissed the complaint, dissolving the protective order. The plaintiff then appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo, focusing solely on the appropriate burden of proof for civil protective orders involving temporary restrictions of firearm rights. The Court held that the preponderance of the evidence is the correct standard in such proceedings, notwithstanding the Second Amendment implications or statutory provisions regarding firearm surrender. The Court found no legislative intent to require a higher standard, and emphasized that temporary restrictions do not amount to a significant deprivation of liberty requiring heightened proof. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded for a new hearing under the preponderance of the evidence standard. View "Andrew v. Adorno" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs owned property in Cumberland, Rhode Island, adjacent to land operated as an automotive recycling facility by the defendants. They alleged that environmental contamination from the facility affected their property. The litigation began in 2006, and after years of procedural developments, the first jury trial in 2012 resulted in a judgment for the plaintiffs. However, the Rhode Island Supreme Court later found that the trial justice had erroneously excluded expert testimony and ordered a new trial.A second jury trial was held in 2020 in the Rhode Island Superior Court. During this trial, plaintiffs’ counsel objected to statements made by defense counsel in his opening, arguing that certain factual assertions were inaccurate. Plaintiffs also objected to the testimony of defense witness Karen Beck, claiming her expert opinion should not include references to a report she had not relied on when forming her initial conclusions. The trial justice issued a curative instruction addressing the opening statement objections and limited Beck’s testimony to certain aspects of the disputed report. The jury returned a verdict for defendants, except for a $10,000 punitive damages award against one defendant, which was later vacated by amended judgment. Plaintiffs appealed, and subsequent procedural delays occurred regarding the transmission of the appellate record.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island addressed whether the plaintiffs’ appeal should be dismissed for procedural delay and whether the trial justice erred regarding the curative instruction and Beck’s testimony. The court held that dismissal was unwarranted since plaintiffs timely ordered transcripts and took reasonable steps regarding the record. The court further held that plaintiffs had waived their objection to the curative instruction by failing to object at trial, and that the limitations placed on Beck’s testimony did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The amended judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Paolino v. Ferreira" on Justia Law

The dispute arose when a company provided estimating services related to property damage at a property in North Providence, Rhode Island. The company claimed it had an agreement with the property owner to perform these services and subsequently invoiced the owner for $3,100. The property owner, however, asserted that there was no signed contract for repairs and that an employee of the company had assured her that there would be no charge unless a formal appraisal was required. Despite this, the owner signed a document labeled as a request for a formal appraisal.A civil action for payment was initiated in the Third Division District Court, which found in favor of the company and entered judgment for $3,100 plus statutory interest. The property owner filed a timely appeal to the Kent County Superior Court. At the Superior Court, a bench trial was held, during which testimony from both parties and a co-owner was heard. The trial justice found that a contract for estimation work had existed, based on the evidence presented, and awarded the company the amount requested. The court noted the repeated attempts by the company to send the invoice and the owner’s refusal to accept it. The Superior Court subsequently dismissed the owner’s appeal from the District Court judgment.When the appeal reached the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, the defendant failed to provide complete transcripts of the trial or to present any substantive legal arguments. The Supreme Court determined that, because of these deficiencies and the lack of meaningful appellate argument, any issues were deemed waived. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Superior Court and remanded the case as appropriate. The main holding is that, in the absence of proper appellate procedure and argument, the Superior Court’s decision stands. View "Future Contracting & Estimators, LLC v. Allen" on Justia Law

In the early morning of December 14, 2008, after a nightclub event in Providence, Rhode Island, gunfire broke out as patrons were leaving, resulting in the fatal shooting of Anthony Parrish. Two eyewitnesses, Shamair Barboza and Nakia Green, identified Dana Gallop as the shooter. Barboza had known Gallop since childhood, while Green identified him from a lineup eight days after the incident. Gallop was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and related crimes, receiving multiple consecutive sentences.After his conviction was affirmed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court, Gallop filed a pro se application for postconviction relief in the Rhode Island Superior Court, later supplemented by counsel. He argued, among other things, that the state failed to disclose that both eyewitnesses were participating in the state’s witness protection program (WPP) and had received financial assistance, which he claimed constituted violations of Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure and Brady v. Maryland. The Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing, hearing testimony from Gallop’s trial counsel and the prosecutor. The judge found the prosecutor’s recollection credible, concluding that the state had disclosed both witnesses’ participation in the WPP and that there was no evidence of undisclosed inducements or material nondisclosure.On certiorari, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the denial of Gallop’s application for postconviction relief. The Court held that Gallop’s objection to the handling of his summary disposition motion was waived because he did not raise it at the time. It further found that the state had disclosed the witnesses’ WPP involvement, and that there was no rule or order requiring disclosure of specific WPP expenditure amounts. The Court also held that any nondisclosure of WPP expenditures was not material under Brady, as Gallop failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome. The judgment denying postconviction relief was affirmed. View "Gallop v. State of Rhode Island" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendants executed a promissory note in 2006 for a $28,000 loan from Sovereign Bank, secured by a second mortgage on their property in Smithfield, Rhode Island. The mortgage named Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as mortgagee, acting as nominee for the lender and its successors. After a series of assignments, the mortgage was ultimately assigned to the plaintiff. It is undisputed that the original promissory note was lost and that the plaintiff never possessed it. The plaintiff filed a complaint in Providence County Superior Court seeking to foreclose on the property after the defendants defaulted on the loan.The defendants responded by arguing that, under Rhode Island law and relevant precedent, only the party that lost the promissory note could enforce it, and that the plaintiff’s lack of possession of the note precluded foreclosure. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, asserting that as the assigned mortgagee, it was entitled to foreclose despite not possessing the note. The Superior Court, referencing prior Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions, found no genuine issue of material fact regarding the default and concluded that the mortgagee need not hold the note to foreclose. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims, and authorized foreclosure, subject to further court order.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court’s order. The Court held that under Rhode Island law, a mortgagee with the power of sale may foreclose on a property even if it does not possess the promissory note, so long as it is the properly assigned mortgagee. The Court rejected the defendants’ arguments based on statutory provisions regarding lost notes, reaffirming that possession of the note is not required for foreclosure by the mortgagee. View "Porch Swing Holdings LLC v. Mallory" on Justia Law

In March 2022, police officers in Providence responded to concerns about Sherbert Maddox, who had not been heard from in several days. Her uncle, Marvin Maddox, reported to officers that he had been told Sherbert was killed and her body was in a refrigerator in her boyfriend’s apartment. Officers went to the apartment complex, spoke with residents, and focused on Apartment 6, where Sherbert’s boyfriend, later identified as the defendant, lived. After repeated knocking and observing someone inside who did not answer the door, officers forcibly entered the apartment without a warrant. Inside, they found the defendant, two firearms, and Sherbert Maddox’s body in a refrigerator.A grand jury indicted the defendant on nine counts, including murder and firearm offenses. Before trial in the Providence County Superior Court, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless entry, arguing it violated his constitutional rights. After a hearing, the trial justice denied the motion, finding exigent circumstances justified the entry. At trial, several counts were dismissed, and the jury convicted the defendant of second-degree murder and related firearm charges. The defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied, and he was sentenced to consecutive life terms and additional concurrent sentences. The defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his suppression motion.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case, applying a clearly erroneous standard to factual findings and conducting an independent review of the constitutional issues. The Court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and search, given the urgent need to check on Sherbert Maddox’s well-being and the information available to police at the time. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, upholding the convictions and the denial of the suppression motion. View "State v. Cooper" on Justia Law

A father was charged with multiple counts of child molestation sexual assault involving his biological daughter, Anne, who was between the ages of three and eight during the alleged incidents. The charges included two counts of first-degree child molestation (fellatio) and two counts of second-degree child molestation (penis to vagina). The alleged acts occurred in the family home in Rhode Island, and Anne testified to both charged and uncharged incidents of sexual misconduct by the defendant, including acts that took place during family trips outside Rhode Island. Anne disclosed the abuse to her stepsister, Christine, and later to other family members, which led to a report to child protective services and a subsequent investigation.The case was tried before a jury in the Rhode Island Superior Court. The jury found the defendant guilty on one count of first-degree child molestation sexual assault (fellatio in the bathroom) and acquitted him on the remaining three counts. The trial justice admitted evidence of the defendant’s prior uncharged sexual misconduct with Anne and with Anne’s mother, Elaine, under Rule 404(b) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, finding the acts sufficiently similar and nonremote to the charged conduct. The court also admitted prior consistent statements made by Anne to family members, allowed travel records into evidence, and excused a prospective juror for cause due to COVID-19 concerns.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed five issues raised by the defendant. The Court held that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in admitting the Rule 404(b) evidence, finding it relevant, necessary, and not unfairly prejudicial. The Court also found no error in the admission of prior consistent statements, the travel records, or the excusal of the juror. The Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and remanded the case to the Superior Court. View "State v. Montero" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury of three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, conspiracy to commit assault with a dangerous weapon, drive-by shooting, and conspiracy to commit a drive-by shooting. The incident occurred on September 12, 2020, when the defendant and a group of friends encountered another group, leading to a shooting that injured three individuals. The defendant was identified as the driver of the vehicle from which the shots were fired. The police investigation led to the arrest of the defendant and the recovery of the firearm used in the shooting.In the Superior Court, the defendant was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to concurrent terms for the assault and conspiracy charges, with additional sentences for the drive-by shooting and conspiracy to commit a drive-by shooting. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in several ways, including not admitting a witness's juvenile record, improperly admitting hearsay evidence, denying his motion for a new trial, and denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the trial court's decisions. The court found that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in excluding the juvenile record, as the defendant did not sufficiently alert the trial justice to the specific rule of evidence he was relying on. The court also determined that the hearsay statement about a "blinky" was properly admitted to show its effect on the listener, not for the truth of the matter asserted.The court affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial, concluding that the trial justice had thoroughly reviewed the evidence, made credibility determinations, and found the testimonies of key witnesses credible. The court also upheld the denial of the motion for a judgment of acquittal, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The judgment of conviction was affirmed, and the case was remanded to the Superior Court. View "State v. Peckham" on Justia Law

Rhode Island Truck Center, LLC (RITC) filed a protest against Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA) for allegedly violating Rhode Island General Laws § 31-5.1-4.2(a). DTNA had granted a franchise to Advantage Truck Raynham, LLC (ATG Raynham) in Raynham, Massachusetts, which RITC claimed was within its "relevant market area" as defined in their franchise agreement. RITC argued that DTNA failed to provide the required statutory notice before establishing the new dealership.The Dealers' Hearing Board determined it lacked jurisdiction over RITC's protest, citing the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. RITC then filed an administrative appeal in the Superior Court, which DTNA removed to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The District Court concluded that the Dealer Law could not be applied extraterritorially without violating the Commerce Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit certified a question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court to determine whether a "relevant market area" under § 31-5.1-4.2(a) could extend beyond Rhode Island's borders.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the certified question de novo and concluded that the statute's plain language and legislative intent allowed a "relevant market area" to extend beyond state borders. The Court noted that the statute's definition of "relevant market area" includes a 20-mile radius or the area defined in the franchise agreement, whichever is greater, without limiting it to within Rhode Island. The Court emphasized that the legislature's intent was to provide dealers with a protective area that could extend beyond state lines, especially given Rhode Island's small geographic size. Thus, the Court answered the certified question in the affirmative, allowing the "relevant market area" to extend beyond Rhode Island's borders. View "Rhode Island Truck Center, LLC v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC" on Justia Law