Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

While traveling in a vehicle insured by Travelers Insurance, Wayne DeMarco was injured in a collision. DeMarco filed a personal injury action against Travelers. The trial court entered judgment in favor of DeMarco for $2,801,939, including interest. DeMarco then commenced the instant civil action against Travelers in the superior court, demanding, inter alia, (1) a declaratory judgment ordering Travelers to pay the entire judgment from the personal injury litigation above and beyond the $1 million policy limits, and (2) a declaratory judgment pursuant to the rejected settlement offer statute requiring Travelers to pay interest on the entire amount. The superior court granted partial summary judgment in favor of DeMarco, holding (1) Travelers was liable to DeMarco for the entire judgment even in a multiple claimant context, and (2) the rejected settlement offer statute was unambiguous in providing that an insurer is liable for interest due on a judgment where it has rejected a plaintiff's written offer to settle within the policy limits. On appeal, the Supreme Court (1) vacated the grant of partial summary judgment as to Travelers' liability, but (2) affirmed the ruling with respect to the applicability of the rejected settlement offer statute. Remanded. View "DeMarco v. Travelers Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Anthony DeCiantis was convicted of murder in the first degree and received a life sentence. DeCiantis filed a third application for postconviction relief, the subject of this appeal, alleging, inter alia, prosecutorial misconduct and that the prosecution intentionally withheld an uncharged act admitted to by one of its witnesses. The superior court dismissed the application, and DeCiantis appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing justice did not err in his determination that no prosecutorial misconduct occurred, and (2) although the witness's uncharged crimes should have been disclosed to DeCiantis, DeCiantis did not satisfy his burden of showing that the nondisclosed evidence was material. View "DeCiantis v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant Mark Sampson was convicted for second degree child abuse in superior court pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 11-9-5.3, otherwise entitled Brendan's Law. Defendant appealed, making several arguments, including that the trial justice erred because (1) Brendan's Law was unconstitutionally vague; and (2) Defendant did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to counsel. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial justice erred in forcing Defendant to choose to defend himself pro se or proceed to trial with an attorney who refused to implement Defendant's personal right to waive a jury, and thus Defendant never knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. The Court did not address the remainder of Defendant's arguments except to impart a specific instruction to the superior court with respect to the proceedings on remand, holding it was error for the trial justice to construe Brendan's Law to, in effect, delete the word "serious" in the statute. Accordingly, an adjudication that a defendant is guilty of second degree child abuse requires a determination as to whether the defendant inflicted a serious physical injury. Remanded. View "State v. Sampson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, defendant Tracey Barros was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, first-degree murder, discharging a firearm while committing a crime of violence, and unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license. On appeal, Defendant contended that the trial justice erred when he (1) denied Defendant's motion to suppress his confession, and (2) precluded cross-examination of a prosecution witness with respect to purported third-party-perpetrator evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress as a review of the record revealed that Defendant's statements were voluntary and the timing of Defendant's presentment was not operative in inducing him to make his confession; and (2) the trial justice did not err in granting the prosecution's motion in limine to preclude the admission of third-party-perpetrator evidence because Defendant did not offer evidence reasonably specific to establish (a) that the individuals referred to had an opportunity to commit the crime or (b) a proximate connection between the individuals and the victim. View "State v. Barros" on Justia Law

Plaintiff North End Realty, a developer, filed a complaint in superior court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants, the town planner, finance director, and members of the town council of East Greenwich, after the town mandated that North End pay a $200,000 fee-in-lieu before it could record any subdivision approval it might receive from the planning board and begin to develop property. The hearing justice ruled that North End had failed to establish there was a likelihood of success of its claim and entered judgment in favor of defendants. On appeal, North End made several arguments, one of which was that the town did not have the requisite statutory authority to impose the fee-in-lieu. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that the town may not legally impose a fee-in-lieu in the absence of enabling authority from the general assembly. Remanded with directions to issue an order enjoining the town from imposing, assessing, or collecting the fee-in-lieu. View "North End Realty, L.L.C. v. Mattos" on Justia Law

This case involved an alleged easement on plaintiffs' property used by defendant development company. Plaintiffs sued for injunctive relief, alleging that defendant had violated the warranty covenants in the deed that conveyed the property in dispute from defendant to plaintiffs. The trial court ruled that the easement was valid. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. On remand, plaintiffs filed a motion for an award of attorneys' fees, damages and costs. The superior court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiffs were not entitled to an award of attorneys' fees for the successful defense of title under a general warranty deed. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that warranty covenants do not entitle the grantee to recover attorneys' fees from the grantor for a successful defense of title even where it is the grantor who attacks the title. View "Nunes v. Meadowbrook Dev. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Harodite Industries filed a complaint against defendant Warren Electric for negligence and other causes of action, seeking damages for the failure of a gasket in the oil pre-heater that Harodite purchased from defendant. After conducting discovery, Harodite filed a motion to amend its complaint. The hearing justice denied Harodite's motion. Plaintiff then filed a motion for a stay pending a ruling on the petition for writ of certiorari it intended to file with the Supreme Court. Defendant objected to the motion, arguing that the court should apply a Massachusetts statute of limitations to plaintiff's proposed amended complaint. The hearing justice held that Rhode Island's ten-year statute of limitations should apply and granted Harodite's motion for a stay. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the superior court, holding (1) the hearing justice did not abuse her discretion in denying Harodite's motion to amend its complaint; and (2) the hearing justice correctly determined that Rhode Island's statute of limitations would be the relevant statute of limitations with respect to the allegations set forth in Harodite's proposed amended complaint, and therefore, those allegations would not be barred by the statute of limitations. View "Harodite Industries, Inc. v. Warren Electric Corp." on Justia Law

The state public utilities commission approved a power-purchase agreement (PPA) between National Grid and Deepwater Wind, the respondents. Under the PPA, Deepwater Wind agreed to construct an offshore wind farm in state waters and then sell the generated electricity to National Grid, a statewide power distributor. National Grid, in turn, pledged to purchase the generated electricity and apportion the cost of building the wind farm to in-state ratepayers over the course of the twenty-year contract. Dissatisfied with National Grid's cost-distribution plan, petitioners Toray Plastics and Polytop challenged the commission's assessment that the PPA met all statutory preconditions for approval. The Supreme Court affirmed the commission's decision, concluding that the commission accurately interpreted and applied the law by making findings that were lawful and reasonable, fairly and substantially supported by legal evidence, and sufficiently specific for the Court to ascertain that the evidence upon which the commission based its findings reasonably supported the result. View "In re Review of Proposed Town of New Shoreham Project" on Justia Law

Defendant Paul Grieder assaulted plaintiff Michael Trainor and pled nolo contendere to one count of simple assault and battery and one count of felony assault. Plaintiff sued defendant in superior court, seeking damages for his injuries. Judgment was entered in plaintiff's favor in the amount of $1.5 million, but defendant refused to render payment in full to plaintiff. In the current case, plaintiff filed suit against defendant in superior court, attempting to recover his due. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to the fact that there had been no return of the execution on the judgment. The hearing justice ruled that since defendant had not raised the jurisdictional issue before the court on prior occasions, he had waived it, and therefore, the defendant's motion was dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the superior court had subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) defendant waived the requirement that there be a return of the execution on the judgment. View "Trainor v. Grieder" on Justia Law

After a violation report was filed against defendant Ramondo Howard alleging defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation, defendant filed a pro se motion indicating that he wished to release his attorney and wanted new counsel to be appointed, confirming on the record he had filed a complaint against his attorney with the court's disciplinary board. The hearing justice excused defendant's attorney. Defendant then filed motions to recuse and change venues, both of which the hearing justice denied. At the violation hearing, the hearing justice found defendant to be a violator of the terms and conditions of his probation. Before the hearing began, however, the hearing justice expressed his belief that defendant needed to be "warehoused" and was "beyond rehabilitation." Defendant appealed, arguing the hearing justice erred by failing to recuse himself from the case because the justice lacked the objectivity and impartiality to fairly hear and render judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that because the hearing justice chose to express his opinions prior to the commencement of the violation hearing, the justice displayed a clear inability to render fair judgment and erred by declining to recuse under the circumstances. Remanded. View "State v. Howard" on Justia Law