Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the superior court entering a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of certain amendments to the New Shoreham General Ordinance, entitled Motorized Cycle Rental, holding that the hearing justice did not err in her decision granting in part Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.Plaintiffs, businesses in the Town of New Shoreham that rented mopeds, filed a complaint against the Town requesting declaratory and injunctive relief and alleging that the Town had attempted to amend the ordinance at issue in contravention of a settlement agreement reached by the parties and in contravention of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31-19.3-5. the hearing justice granted Plaintiffs' motion to enjoin preliminarily enforcement of the amendments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on their allegations of error. View "Finnimore & Fisher Inc. v. Town of New Shoreham" on Justia Law

Integra is an accountable-care organization under the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). RIPCPC is an independent practice association of physicians located in Rhode Island. The plaintiffs (Hayden, King, Corsi) are primary care physicians and operated their own independent practices. Each participated in Integra until 2018, when they terminated their respective agreements upon the sale of their respective independent practices (Integra agreements) and terminated their relationships with RIPCPC. The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, and anticipatory breach/repudiation against Integra and RIPCPC, claiming that Integra and RIPCPC owed plaintiffs certain payments and shared savings for 2017 and 2018.The defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted as to breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by RIPCPC and anticipatory breach/repudiation by RIPCPC. RIPCPC then successfully moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration as to plaintiffs’ claims against RIPCPC for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and declaratory judgment. The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the hearing justice did not err in granting RIPCPC’s motion to compel arbitration with regard to Hayden’s claims for breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment nor in granting RIPCPC’s motion to compel arbitration with regard to Corsi’s claim for breach of contract but erred in granting RIPCPC’s motion to compel arbitration with regard to Corsi’s claims and King’s claims for conversion and unjust enrichment. View "Hayden v. Integra Community Care Network, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court affirming the determination of the Rhode Island-Sex Offender Board of Review that Petitioner posed a level II, moderate risk of reoffense, holding that the trial justice erred in upholding the Board's classification of petitioner at a level II risk to reoffend.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the trial justice erred in finding that the State presented a prima facie case sufficient to justify the Board's determination that he posed a level II, moderate risk to reoffend. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the judgment below, holding that the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to support the Board's moderate risk classification. View "State v. Decredico" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the superior court determining that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation, holding that the hearing justice did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in finding a violation.Defendant appealed from two judgments of probation violation entered in separate superior court cases stemming from the same adjudication, arguing that the hearing justice erred in finding that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation in both cases. The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of probation violation, holding that the hearing justice did not err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant had violated his probation. View "State v. Bliss" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's murder convictions and sentences, holding that the trial justice's instructions adequately covered the law on all the crimes charged and that the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial.After a trial, the jury found that Defendant was guilty of first degree murder, to wit, felony murder during the course of an inherently dangerous felony and other crimes. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial justice's jury instruction on robbery created reversible error, among other things. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in its entirety, holding (1) the trial justice's jury instruction on robbery did not create reversible error; and (2) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal and his motion for a new trial. View "State v. Gibson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the superior court granting motions to stay the superior court proceedings in four cases and refer them to arbitration in this construction dispute, holding that that superior court correctly found that these disagreement must be resolved through arbitration.Plaintiff substituted itself as the plaintiff and assignee of three subcontractors in in three mechanics' liens actions and then filed an additional complaint against the assignee of nine further subcontractors. Plaintiff further filed a complaint claiming it was owed $854,352 from Defendants. Defendants moved to stay the proceedings in all five cases and refer them to arbitration. The trial justice found that the language of the subcontracts required mandatory arbitration for the disputes and compelled the parties to participate in mandatory arbitration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the disputes must be referred for arbitration. View "Petrolex II LLC v. Bailey Group LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant in this personal injury action, holding that Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a legal duty on the part of Defendant.Plaintiff purchased fish at Defendant's supermarket and allegedly became ill after he ate the fish. Plaintiff brought this negligence action alleging that Defendant breached its alleged duty to him to "process, prepare, cook and sell food free from unreasonably dangerous defects." The hearing justice granted summary judgment for Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the hearing justice's ruling as regarding Defendant's duty; and (2) the hearing justice did not commit reversible error by denying Plaintiff's motion invoking Rule 56(f) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. View "Meeks v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC" on Justia Law

In these two consolidated cases, the Supreme Court vacated the final judgment granting Respondent the right to redeem its real property in a tax-sale action and from an order granting Respondent's motion to adjudge Petitioner in contempt, holding that there was no offer to redeem to satisfy the strict statutory requirements of R.I. Gen. Laws 44-9-29.After the property at issue, which was owned by Respondent, was sold at a tax sale by the City of Providence Petitioner filed a petition to foreclose on Respondent's right of redemption. Respondent answered by contesting the validity of the tax sale. Respondent then filed a motion to set a redemption figure. The hearing justice set the redemption amount at $65,000. Petitioner failed to deliver the redemption deed, after which Respondent moved to adjudge Petitioner in contempt. The superior court adjudged Petitioner in contempt and granted a motion to stay the order setting a redemption figure. The Supreme Court vacated the final judgment granting Respondent's right of redemption and the order of contempt, holding that, having failed to set forth in its answer an offer to redeem before the fixed return date, Respondent's right to redeem was barred. View "Westconnaug Recovery Co. v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court deciding to grant Defendant's request to represent himself and denying his motion for a new trial, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that his waiver of his right to the assistance of counsel was not valid and that the trial justice erred when she denied his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the trial justice's decision allowing Defendant to discharge his attorney when and as he did; and (2) the record established that Defendant made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his right to the assistance of counsel; and (3) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial. View "State v. Delossantos" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the superior court in these three related by unconsolidated appeals, holding that Appellants were not entitled to relief on their arguments on appeal.In No. 2021-303-A and No. 2021-331-A, defendants Thomas and John Mercurio appealed pro se from a superior court granting the motion to adjudge the Mercurios in contempt filed by plaintiffs Dean and Melissa Pinelli. In No. 2021-331-A, plaintiff Elena Massarone appealed pro se from a superior court order granting the Pinellis' motion to adjudge Elena in civil contempt. On appeal, Elena and the Mercurios both asserted largely identical claims of error. The Supreme Court affirmed in all cases, holding that because none of the appellants provided transcripts to the Court from any of the hearings held throughout the proceedings and because their statements failed to provide any cogent legal analysis or substantive discussion of their claims, the appellants waived their arguments on appeal. View "Pinelli v. Mercurio" on Justia Law