Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the final judgment of the superior court in favor of Defendants due to Plaintiff's having failed to comply with her discovery obligations, which had earlier been the subject of a conditional order of dismissal, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff brought this complaint alleging that Defendants had discriminated against her in retaliation for her whistleblowing activities and that she was entitled to relief under the Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Protection Act. Ultimately, the hearing justice granted Defendants' motion for final judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff had, over a five-year period, repeatedly failed to comply with her discovery obligations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice acted within her discretion in ordering the entry of final judgment. View "Boss v. Chamberland" on Justia Law

In this commercial dispute, the Supreme Court affirmed the final judgment of the superior court in favor of Defendants based on Plaintiffs' failure to comply with orders to provide discovery, holding that there was no error.The parties in this case executed a contract providing that Defendants would sell finished fiberglass products manufactured by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs later filed a complaint alleging that Defendants had failed to pay upon delivery of goods and that Defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of profits and sales commission. The trial justice eventually granted Defendants' motion for entry of final judgment, referencing Plaintiffs' failure timely to respond to discovery requests and their failure to comply with superior court orders. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion when he dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. View "EdgengG (Private), Ltd. v. Fiberglass Fabricators, Inc." on Justia Law

In this action for declaratory judgment the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the superior court denying Family Dollar Stores of Rhode Island, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment for Justin Araujo, the complainant in a proceeding before the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights, holding that the hearing justice erred.Araujo filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that Family Dollar, his employer, had discriminated against him on the basis of an illness. The parties entered into a settlement agreement that included a release. At issue was whether the release unambiguously constituted a waiver by Araujo of his right to pursue all claims he could make against Family Dollar. The hearing justice granted summary judgment in favor of Araujo, entering judgment declaring that the release did not cover Araujo's discrimination claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the release unambiguously precluded Araujo from pursuing a discrimination charge with the Commission. View "Family Dollar Stores of Rhode Island, Inc. v. Araujo" on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of Defendant following the denial of Plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment and the grant of Defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that Defendant was required to provide him with full insurance coverage and indemnification for his claims in his underlying personal injury lawsuit. The hearing justice granted summary judgment for Defendant as to all of Plaintiff's claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on his claims of error. View "Dulong v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court terminating Mother's parental rights to her son, Lucas D, holding that the trial justice did not err in deciding that Mother's parental rights should be terminated.After a trial, the trial justice issued a decision finding Mother to be unfit and determining that her parental rights should be terminated. Mother appealed, arguing that the Department of Children, Youth and Families failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had committed or allowed to be committed cruel and abusive conduct toward Lucas while in her care. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was competent evidence to support the trial justice's finding that Mother was an unfit parent; and (2) the trial justice did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination was in the best interests of the child. View "In re Lucas D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in this probate case involving an international will dispute impacting the probate of he estate of Matoula Papadopouli (the decedent), holding that the superior court did not err in affirming the order of probate court.The decedent held dual citizenship in the United States and Greece. The administratrix of the estate filed a miscellaneous petition requesting an order granting her full access to the estate's accounts in order to pay expenses related to a will contest in Greece. The probate court granted the motion. The superior court affirmed after applying Rhode Island law to the case, holding that Rhode Island law authorized the use of the estate's assets to fulfill the will contest in Greece. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in allowing the administratrix to use the estate's assets to fund the estate's defense to the Greek litigation. View "Smile of the Child v. Estate of Papadopouli" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court denying Mother's motion for relocation with the minor child of the parties, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.The parties in this case were never married and together have a child. Pursuant to a court order, the parties were granted joint custody and Mother was granted physical placement of the child. The next year, Mother filed a motion to relocate with the child to the state of Florida. The trial justice denied the motion to relocate, concluding that relocation was not in the best interests of the child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence in denying the motion to relocate. View "Leon v. Krikorian" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the superior court granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendant in this insurance dispute, holding that the grant of judgment on the pleadings for Defendant was erroneous.The roof at Plaintiffs' home collapsed due to accumulating ice and snow. The property was insured through a policy issued by Defendant. Plaintiffs invoked the appraisal provision of the policy and later brought a second amended complaint alleging that Defendant had breached the terms of the policy by not performing a complete investigation and had acted in bad faith in the handling of their claim. The motion justice granted Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Plaintiffs could not maintain an action for breach of contract against Defendant. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment below, holding that the allegations, as pled, could support a claim for breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. View "Houle v. Liberty Insurance Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court convicting and sentencing Defendant for one count of resisting arrest, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial justice committed prejudicial error by failing to instruct the jury on a defense to the charge of resisting arrest, by failing to pass the case following the State's inclusion of certain remarks in its opening statement, and by refusing to allow a certain line of questioning on cross-examination of the arresting officer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's claims on appeal were without merit. View "State v. Burkinshaw" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court awarding Plaintiffs attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $25,472, holding that there was no error.Plaintiffs - America Condominium Association, Inc. and Capella South Condominium Association, Inc. - brought this action alleging that the Constellation Trust-2011 was expanding a certain unit onto limited common elements and thereby changing the unit's boundaries. The superior court entered final judgment for Plaintiffs on three counts and deemed the remaining count moot. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the case for the trial justice's valuation of the costs to be awarded, holding that the trial judge did not err in (1) awarding attorneys' fees and costs; and (2) deciding to discount the fees on fees award. View "America Condominium Ass'n v. Mardo" on Justia Law