Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court terminating Mother's parental rights her to her daughter, holding that the family court justice's findings were not clearly wrong, and the justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the trial justice did not err by (1) failing to recuse herself from the trial after she ordered the filing of a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights; (2) finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother was an unfit parent; and (3) concluding that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights to her. View "In re Adele B." on Justia Law

In this negligence action, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the superior court denying Plaintiffs' motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of Defendant, holding that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for a new trial.Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant's negligence caused an automobile collision and that Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Defendant. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial justice denied. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence in finding that reasonable minds could differ as to whether Defendant was liable and that the trial justice correctly performed his role when ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. View "Dominguez v. Otero" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court denying Appellant's application for postconviction relief, holding that Appellant's claims lacked merit.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, and conspiracy. Appellant later filed a pro se application for postconviction relief, arguing that newly discovered evidence required a new trial, that the trial justice impermissibly amended the indictment, and that a consecutive life sentence for discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence should not have been imposed. The hearing justice denied the application for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing justice correctly found that Appellant's evidence did not meet the test for newly discovered evidence; and (2) Appellant's remaining claims were barred by res judicata and also lacked merit. View "Graham v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the superior court granting summary judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, holding that the trial justice did not err in holding that the statute of limitations barred Plaintiff's claim for personal injuries that arose from a fall on the property of Liberty Mutual's insured.In a second complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell at a Pizza Hut restaurant that was owned and operated by Mita Enterprises, LLC. Plaintiff then moved to substitute Liberty Mutual as a defendant. The motion was granted. Thereafter, Liberty Mutual moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the three-year statute of limitations barred Plaintiff's action. The trial justice agreed and granted summary judgment for Liberty Mutual. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court's judgment, holding that the trial justice erred in holding that the savings statute did not apply to Plaintiff's claim against Liberty Mutual. View "Frazier v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court dismissing Plaintiff's breach of contract case against Defendant, her homeowner's insurance carrier, after a hearing justice granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that summary judgment was properly granted in this case.Plaintiff, who had a homeowner's insurance policy purchased from Defendant, sought coverage for damage done to her residence when her water heater leaked and flooded her basement. When Defendant declined coverage Plaintiff filed a complaint claiming breach of contract. Defendant field a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff's breach of contract claim failed as a matter of law because, under the unambiguous language of the policy, the flooding caused by the defective water heater was not a loss covered by the policy. The hearing justice granted the motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the damage caused by Plaintiff's malfunctioning water heater was clearly not one of the hazards articulated in the policy language. View "Nelson v. Allstate Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the superior court adjudicating Defendant to be in criminal contempt, holding that the trial justice's two-year consecutive sentence was clearly beyond the six-month maximum.Defendant was convicted for first-degree robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon in a dwelling. At sentencing, the trial justice deviated from the sentencing benchmarks and sentenced Defendant to thirty-five years' incarceration. When Defendant acted out in the presence of the court, the trial justice found Defendant in contempt of court. The trial justice sentenced Defendant to an additional two years' incarceration for criminal contempt, to be served consecutively with his sentence to serve on the underlying charges. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial justice was clearly within her authority in adjudicating Defendant in criminal contempt; but (2) Defendant's sentence for contempt was unlawful. View "In re Joseph I. Lamontagne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of felony assault and one count of simple assault, holding that none of the trial justice's rulings challenged on appeal was erroneous.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) because Defendant never questioned the trial justice's impartiality when it was appropriate to do so Defendant waived his argument that he was deprived of his right to trial by a neutral and detached arbiter; (2) the trial justice’s finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each count did not constitute an impermissible pyramiding of inferences; (3) Defendant's argument that he was deprived of his right to fair notice of the crime for which he was convicted and prejudiced by the timing of the introduction of the theory of aiding and abetting was without merit; and (4) because each of the individual allegations of error lacked merit, the cumulative effect doctrine did not apply. View "State v. Parrillo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the superior court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants and declaring that a foreclosure sale of Plaintiff's property was valid, holding that the foreclosure sale was void because the notice of default sent to Plaintiff failed to comply with the terms of the mortgage.In 2007, Plaintiff purchased property and granted a mortgage on the property to secure a loan. In 2014, Plaintiff became delinquent on the mortgage. The mortgagee sent a notice of default and intent to accelerate to Plaintiff. After Plaintiff failed to cure the default, Plaintiff's property was sold at foreclosure sale. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the default notice was deficient and thus the foreclosure sale was void. After Defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied, Defendants sought declaratory relief seeking a declaration that the default notice sent to Plaintiff complied with the terms of the mortgage. The trial justice ruled in favor of Defendants. An order then entered dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and declaring the foreclosure sale valid. The Supreme Court vacated the order of the superior court, holding that the default notice failed strictly to comply with the terms of the mortgage, and therefore, Defendants failed to satisfy the condition precedent to a valid foreclosure. View "Woel v. Christiana Trust" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approving the interconnection tax which National Grid (NG) charged Petitioners to interconnect to NG's distribution system then paid to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as contributions in aid of construction, holding that the PUC did not err.In their petition for the issuance of writ of certiorari, Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to declare the PUC order illegal and unreasonable for purportedly failing to follow a specific IRS ruling and for failing to hold NG to its burden of proof. The Supreme Court affirmed the PUC's order, holding (1) NG was entirely reasonable in believing that it continued to owe the interconnection tax to the IRS and in, therefore, passing that tax on to Petitioners; and (2) the PUC order fully comported with a settlement proposal in this case. View "ACP Land, LLC v. Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered in this case in what situations a non-attorney who performs one or more of the various services that are associated with a real estate transaction is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee transmitted three reports to the Supreme Court concluding that Respondents had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by engaging in several aspects of residential real estate transactions that constitute the practice of law. The Supreme Court declined to adopt the Committee's recommendations in part and accepted them in part, holding (1) title insurance companies and their agencies do not engage in the unauthorized practice of law when they conduct a residential real estate closing, draft a residency affidavit, and draft a limited durable power of attorney when those activities are carried out in connection with the issuance of title insurance; (2) a title insurance company by conduct the examination of title for marketability only if a licensed attorney conducts the examination; and (3) drafting a deed constitutes the practice of law and that an attorney is required to either draft the deed or review it after its has been prepared. View "In re William E. Paplauskas, Jr." on Justia Law