Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Daniela Turacova and Ronald DeThomas (DeThomas) formed a limited liability company known as TAMA. After DeThomas passed away, a dispute arose regarding the buyout of his interest in TAMA. Because Plaintiff and Defendant, the Estate of DeThomas, were unable to agree upon the purchase price for DeThomas's fifty percent interest in TAMA, the superior court determined the fair market value of the property and construed several provisions of the TAMA operating agreement to fix the total amount that Plaintiff owed to the Estate. The superior court entered judgment in favor of Defendant in the amount of $658,573, including prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) disregarding the language of the parties' settlement agreement indicating that Plaintiff would have thirty days from the date of the property was valued in which to pay Defendant, as the settlement agreement did not supersede the provision in the operating agreement concerning the time for payment; and (2) awarding prejudgment interest. View "Turacova v. DeThomas" on Justia Law

On August 27, 2007, an eighty-seven-year-old woman's purse was stolen in a supermarket parking lot. As a result, Defendant Nelson Rolon was charged with and ultimately convicted of first-degree robbery. Rolon appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because the evidence produced at trial was legally insufficient to prove the element of force. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State produced sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant used force to take the victim's purse; and (2) therefore, sufficient evidence existed that would justify a reasonable juror in finding that Defendant robbed the victim on August 27, 2007. View "State v. Rolon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an African-American male of Nigerian origin, was hired by Atlantek, Inc. Zebra Technologies later acquired Atlantek. Three years later, Plaintiff was laid off. Plaintiff signed a release document and submitted it to Zebra Atlantek without consulting with his attorney. According to another document received by Plaintiff, Plaintiff's receipt of separation benefits was contingent on the receipt by Zebra Atlantek of a signed copy of the release document wherein Plaintiff released any claims under the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) or any state law prohibiting employment discrimination or harassment. Plaintiff later commenced an action against Defendants, Zebra Atlantek and several individuals, alleging that he had been discriminated against in violation of the FEPA and State Civil Rights Act. Defendants counterclaimed, alleging that Plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit constituted a material breach of the release document. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, holding that FEPA did not render the release document void as it applied to Plaintiff's pending FEPA claims. View "Olamuyiwa v. Zebra Atlantek, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Cheryl Sola appealed from a superior court decision dismissing her defamation claim as time-barred and granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, the City of Newport and Detective Michael Caruolo, individually and in his capacity as a member of the Newport Police Department (collectively, Defendants). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even though Plaintiff included John Doe defendants, the provisions of R.I. Gen. Laws 9-5-20, which tolls the statute of limitations to provide a plaintiff with an opportunity to discover an unknown defendant, were unavailable to Plaintiff; (2) Plaintiff's claim accrued on the date when the statements at issue were published, not on the date on which Plaintiff was fired as a result of Caruolo's allegedly defamatory statements; and (3) Plaintiff's argument that the statute of limitations should have been tolled because Caruolo fraudulently concealed Plaintiff's cause of action was without merit. View "Sola v. Leighton" on Justia Law

Defendant Milton Pelosi appealed from two orders of the family court, an order denying Defendant's motion to vacate the entry of the interlocutory judgment and the final judgment of divorce and the order granting Plaintiff Kathleen Pelosi's motion to dismiss Defendant's appeal. On appeal, Defendant contended that he was never provided notice of (1) the entry of the final judgment of divorce, or (2) the hearing pursuant to which the amended final judgment was entered. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court dismissing Defendant's appeal, holding that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in granting Plaintiff's motion to dismiss on the grounds that Defendant had failed to perfect his appeal. View "Pelosi v. Pelosi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Nicola Tarzia was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine. After Tarzia successfully completed a diversion program, the State dismissed the charge. Tarzia later filed a motion to expunge the charge, which the district court granted. Later, however, Tarzia's past criminal activity was subsequently published. Tarzia filed a fifteen-count civil action against several State and City actors, alleging, inter alia, unlawful dissemination of expunged records, negligence, and failure to seal Plaintiff's records. The circuit court dismissed two counts for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and after a jury trial, granted judgment as a matter of law to the State and City. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the remedy of civil liability did not apply to Tarzia's case; (2) there was no reason for the Court to recognize other causes of action based in common law for alleged violations of the sealing statute; (3) the information allegedly provided to a newspaper reporter did not amount to a violation of the state's right-to-privacy statute; and (4) Tarzia waived his right to challenge on appeal the district court's finding that all of the named defendants were sued in their official capacity. View "Tarzia v. State" on Justia Law

The underlying action in this case concerned real property located in the City of Warwick that Defendant, Felix Carlone, dedicated to the City in 1979. Plaintiffs, Warwick Sewer Authority (WSA) and the City, brought a complaint for a declaratory judgment concerning the City's ownership of the property. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. Defendant appealed, contending that he dedicated the property on the condition that it be used as open space, that he maintained a reversionary interest in it, and that, therefore, genuine issues of material facts should have precluded the hearing justice from granting summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because no ambiguity existed on the face of the writings in this case, the parol evidence that Defendant presented rightly was not entertained by the hearing justice to vary the writings' terms; and (2) the property restrictions filed by Defendant with the City did not operate to restrict WSA from rezoning the dedicated land from open space to residential. View "Warwick Sewer Auth. v. Carlone" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Thomas DePetrillo filed suit against Belo Holdings, Inc. and Citadel Broadcasting Company, challenging the validity of Citadel's right of first refusal to purchase a broadcasting tower and surrounding real estate owned by Belo. The superior court granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff, as a stranger to the original lease agreement between Belo and Citadel, had no standing to challenge Citadel's right of first refusal or the effectiveness of its exercise. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff lacked authority to challenge the validity of the right of first refusal; and (2) Citadel's right of first refusal was enforceable as a matter of law. View "DePetrillo v. Belo Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Defendant's employee, was traveling as a passenger in a pickup truck owned and operated by Defendant when the truck collided with another vehicle, resulting in injuries to Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued Defendant and Defendant's Insurer, alleging negligence. The trial justice granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, reasoning that because Plaintiff had collected workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained while traveling with Defendant on work-related business, the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act precluded double recovery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff relinquished his right to sue Defendant in tort after accepting workers' compensation benefits based on the exclusivity provision of the Act. View "LaFreniere v. Dutton" on Justia Law

A justice of the superior court found Defendant guilty of having violated section 16-93 of the Providence Code of Ordinances for allowing the emanation of loud music from his vehicle. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 16-93 was not preempted by state law because it was not in direct conflict with state statutes regulating noise and also because it did not constitute an impermissible invasion of a field of regulation that was fully occupied by state law; (2) the statute was not unconstitutional for being impermissibly vague; and (3) the statute was not unconstitutional for being overly broad. View "State ex rel. City of Providence v. Auger " on Justia Law