Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner filed an application for a license to carry a concealed weapon. The Chief of Police for the City of East Providence denied the application. Petitioner sought review of the denial of his application pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act and later added a request for mandamus relief. The superior court dismissed the action, determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the petition and quashed the decision denying Petitioner’s application for a license to carry a concealed weapon, holding (1) the Chief of Police's conclusions for denying the license were either insufficient or incorrect; and (2) the license denial could not properly be predicated on remote events resulting in Petitioner’s arrest on charges that were ultimately dismissed. View "Gadomski v. Taveres" on Justia Law

Frank Corrente was employed by the City of Providence during two separate time periods. Following a federal investigation, Corrente was convicted of six felony counts stemming from his employment during the second time period. After a hearing conducted pursuant to the “Honorable Service Ordinance” (HSO) of the City of Providence Code of Ordinances, the Retirement Board of the Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Providence voted to reduce Corrente’s pension benefits. The Board then filed a civil action in the superior court requesting a confirmation of its decision. The mayor and the City of Providence were allowed to intervene. The superior court subsequently entered an order confirming the Board’s decision to reduce Corrente’s pension. The intervenors appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that because this case was brought pursuant to the HSO and was adjudicated in the superior court prior to the enactment of R.I. Gen Laws 36-10.1-5, which vests the superior court with jurisdiction to review pending proceedings under a municipal ordinance, the superior court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and, therefore, the final judgment was void. Remanded. View "Ret. Bd. of Employees’ Ret. Sys. of City of Providence v. Corrente" on Justia Law

Pawtucket police officer Laprade was convicted of disorderly conduct, stemming from a 2010 incident, during which two women observed the off-duty Laprade masturbating and exposing himself while driving his personal vehicle. The city charged Laprade with violations of regulations stemming from that conviction and other incidents, including sleeping while on duty. After being notified of the city’s recommendation that his employment be terminated, Laprade requested a hearing under the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights Act (LEOBOR), G.L. 42-28.6-4. A committee was selected. Nine days before the scheduled hearing and one day after the statutory deadline, the city provided Laprade with a list of its witnesses and evidence. Because of the timing and a personal conflict, a member of the committee unsuccessfully sought a continuance. Although no complaint or petition had been filed, the Presiding Justice of the Superior Court issued an order stating that failure to present the list 10 days before the hearing date did not present good cause to extend the date. The committee refused to accept evidence on the first scheduled date. Ultimately the committee found that, due to procedural errors, the city had not proven its case. The superior court affirmed. The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated, based on procedural errorsView "City of Pawtucket v. Laprade" on Justia Law

In 1998, the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and John, Alfred, and Anna Tillinghast (Defendants) executed a consent agreement regarding the actions Defendants would take to remedy alleged violations of the Freshwater Wetlands Act from the establishment of five campsites in the Bowdish Lake Camping Area. When Defendants purportedly failed to comply with the consent agreement, the superior court appointed a master to resolve the issues in dispute. The master issued a report, and Defendants filed a motion asking the trial justice to approve the master’s report. After a hearing, the trial justice adopted the report and ordered that the master’s findings be implemented. Plaintiff, named in her official capacity as the director of the DEM, appealed. The Supreme Court denied and dismissed the appeal, holding that because the order confirming the master’s report was not final, the appeal was interlocutory and thus not properly before the Court. View "Coit v. Tillinghast" on Justia Law

Power Survey Company sought a writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court contending that the Public Utilities Commission improperly interpreted and applied the Contact Voltage Statute when it approved the portion of the Narragansett Electric Company’s (NEC) contact voltage program providing for the issuance of a request for proposal for the purpose of choosing a vendor to provide the technology for the NEC’s contact voltage testing. The Supreme Court issued the writ. Respondents, the NEC and the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers, moved to quash the writ on the grounds that it was not timely filed. The Supreme Court granted Respondents’ motions, holding that, under the facts of this case, Power Survey’s petition was untimely. View "In re Proceedings to Establish a Contact Voltage Detection & Repair Program" on Justia Law

After unsuccessfully seeking reimbursement from the State Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, Plaintiffs, a school district and school department, filed a complaint in the superior court alleging that the Commissioner and State Treasurer were required to reimburse them for the salary, fringe benefits, and travel expenses of the directors and guidance counselors in their vocational-technical programs. The superior court dismissed the complaint, concluding that Plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law and that the Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiffs reimbursement was discretionary in nature, rather than ministerial. Plaintiffs subsequently sought a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court, holding that Plaintiffs did not have a clear legal right to be reimbursed for certain costs associated with the operation of their career and technical centers. View "Chariho Reg’l Sch. Dist. v. Gist" on Justia Law

David Alba was appointed to serve as principal of an elementary school in Cranston, Rhode Island. Alba and the Cranston School Committee subsequently entered into an employment contract. Later, after a hearing, the Committee rejected a recommendation to renew Alba’s employment contract. Alba appealed the Committee’s decision. The Commissioner of Education denied and dismissed Alba’s appeal, concluding that Alba had received all the process to which he was entitled under the contract and the School Administrators’ Rights Act. The Board of Regents affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Committee acted within its authority when it voted against the recommendation to renew Alba’s contract; and (2) the Committee’s nonrenewal of Alba’s contract did not deprive Alba of his rights under the Administrators’ Rights Act. View "Alba v. Cranston Sch. Comm." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, school committees of Woonsocket and Pawtucket and unnamed students, parents, and the superintendents from both districts, brought suit against the legislative and executive branches of Rhode Island’s state government challenging the state’s school funding formula. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Education Clause as well as violations of their substantive due process and equal protection rights because the formula failed to allocate adequate resources to less affluent communities. The superior court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) prior case law as well as the separation of powers doctrine warranted dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Education Clause claim; and (2) Plaintiffs’ complaint was insufficient to establish potential substantive due process claims. View "Woonsocket Sch. Comm. v. Chafee " on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, limited liability entities that owned property in the Town of Coventry, filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the legality of sewer assessments assessed by Coventry. A hearing justice dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint for their failure to follow the correct administrative appeal process. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint, holding (1) the hearing justice erred in granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiffs had not followed the R.I. Gen. Laws 44-5-26 tax appeal process, as section 44-5-26 did not apply in this case; and (2) the appeal process set forth in section 19 of Coventry’s sewer enabling act is the process by which residents of Coventry may appeal sewer assessments or charges levied by Coventry pursuant to its authority under the enabling act. View "Commerce Park Assocs. 1, LLC v. Houle" on Justia Law

The Providence School Board (Board) provided health insurance to active employees and retirees. In 2006, the Providence Teachers Union (Union) filed a grievance protesting a difference in the increase of premium costs for retirees compared with a more modest increase in premium costs for active employees. The Union argued that the Board's action violated three provisions of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the board and the union. An arbitrator ruled in the Union's favor, concluding that the Board violated the CBA by failing to include retirees and active employees in a single group when it calculated the healthcare premium rates. The trial justice vacated the arbitration award, concluding (1) the Union did not have standing to pursue a grievance on behalf of retirees, and (2) the issue of the calculation of the group premium rate was not arbitrable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to Arena v. City of Providence and City of Newport v. Local 1080, the Union could not pursue this grievance on behalf of the retirees; and (2) because the Union had no standing to pursue this particular grievance, the grievance was not arbitrable. View "Providence Sch. Bd. v. Providence Teachers Union, Local 958" on Justia Law