Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order and judgment of the family court finding Respondent delinquent for possession of child pornography, holding that Respondent was not entitled to relief on three of his arguments and that Respondent waived his fourth argument.Specifically, the Court held (1) the family court magistrate did not err in denying Respondent's request for a Franks hearing; (2) the trial justice did not err in determining that the search warrant was supported by probable cause; (3) the trial justice did not err in finding that the police did not need to obtain a new search warrant after the police determined that their original warrant was based on misinformation; and (4) Defendant waived his argument that the trial justice erred by not suppressing Respondent's oral statements to the police. View "In re Austin B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court quashed the order of the superior court that quashed the oral deposition of M.Y., the minor daughter of Defendants, holding that the hearing justice erred when he quashed M.Y.'s oral deposition and required Plaintiffs to depose M.Y. via written questions "in accord with the rules of civil procedure."In this tort action, the hearing justice prohibited M.Y.'s oral deposition in order to limit any potential harm to M.Y., a minor child who suffered from generalized anxiety. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the hearing justice should have allowed the oral deposition to continue under reasonable restrictions while still preserving Plaintiffs' right to relevant discovery. The Supreme Court held that where the evidence of potential harm to M.Y. was speculative and conclusory, Defendants failed to overcome their burden to demonstrate good cause as required by Rule 26(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court remanded the case so that Plaintiffs may conduct an oral deposition of M.Y. and noted that the hearing justice may impose reasonable restrictions on the oral deposition. View "Estate of Brian Chen v. Ye" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court granting summary judgment in favor of Insurer and Plaintiff's claims alleging that Insurer was contractually obligated to provide insurance coverage to Plaintiff, which was listed as an additional issued on the relevant insurance policy, holding that Insurer had no duty to defend Plaintiff.Plaintiff, the general contractor for a construction project, subcontracted with Insured for structural work on the project. Insured purchased a commercial general liability insurance policy from Insurer, which named Plaintiff as an additional insured. The policy provided for defense and indemnification costs to Insured for its work on the project. Insured's employee (Employee), who sustained injuries while working on the construction project site, filed a complaint against Plaintiff, alleging that Plaintiff's negligent acts were the proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that Insurer was contractually obligated to indemnify and defend Plaintiff as an additional insured relative to the Employee action. The superior court justice granted summary judgment for Insurer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Employee's complaint was devoid of any allegations that brought the underlying case within the coverage of the policy, and therefore, Insurer had no duty to defend Plaintiff. View "Bacon Construction Co. v. Arbella Protection Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court ruling that federal law preempted state statutes authorizing vicarious liability of a car owner for the negligent acts of the driver, holding that the federal Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. 30106, preempts this state's laws allowing a party injured in a motor vehicle accident to recover from the title owner of a vehicle through the owner's vicarious liability for the negligence of the driver.Plaintiff was operating his motorcycle when an automobile turned in front of him, resulting in a collision and multiple serious injuries to Plaintiff. Plaintiff named as a defendant the owner of the car - the corporate entity to which the car lease had been assigned - alleging vicarious liability for the negligent acts of the driver. The hearing justice granted summary judgment for the owner. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Grave Amendment preempts any state statute imposing vicarious liability on the title owner of the vehicle the driver in question was driving when the collision occurred. View "Puerini v. LaPierre" on Justia Law

In these actions challenging the assessment of alleged illegal real estate taxes on several properties and property owners, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of Defendants in the declaratory judgment action and denied and dismissed the appeal in the tax appeal action, holding that the Plaintiff did not have standing in either action.Defendants were various officials of the Town of Barrington, Rhode Island; Sweetbriar, LP; and East Bay Community Development Corporation. Plaintiff was the owner of property located in Barrington. Plaintiff filed a complaint appealing the assessment of his property (tax appeal action) and filed a separate declaratory judgment action. In essence, Plaintiff argued that he was forced to pay a higher amount on his taxes because of Sweetbriar's favorable tax treatment under R.I. Gen. Laws 44-5-12 and 44-5-13.11. The hearing justice ruled that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring either action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff lacked standing to bring the declaratory judgment action; and (2) the hearing justice did not err in determining that Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge Barrington's application of section 44-5-12 and 44-5-13.11 to the Sweetbriar development, along with another project. View "Morse v. Minardi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the family court ordering Joel Trojan to pay $1,796 per month in child support for the parties' minor child, holding that the trial justice erred in calculating the assets available to satisfy Joel's child support obligation.On appeal, Denise Trojan argued that the trial justice erred when he did not order Joel to pay interim and retroactive child support and erred in determining Joel's gross income for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding (1) the trial court acted within the bounds of his discretion in awarding child support; and (2) the trial justice erred when he excluded certain moneys from Joel's gross income. View "Trojan v. Trojan" on Justia Law

In this appeal concerned two City of Cranston ordinances that promulgated a ten-year suspension of the cost-of-living adjustment benefit for retirees of the Cranston Police Department and Cranston Fire Department who were enrolled in the City's pension plan the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court finding in favor of Defendants, holding that the superior court did not err in its judgment.The Cranston Police Retirees Action Committee (Plaintiff) brought this action against the City, Mayor Allan Fung, and members of the Cranston City Council (collectively, Defendants) alleging claims ranging from constitutional violations to statutory infringements. A superior court justice found in favor of Defendants on all counts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court justice did not err by (1) finding that the ordinances did not violate the Contract Clauses of the United States and Rhode Island Constitutions; (2) applying the burden of proof in the Contract Clause analysis; (3) applying expert testimony; (4) granting summary judgment for the City as to Takings Clause, res judicata, and Rhode Island Open Meetings Act claims; and (5) ruling on an assortment of motions and in her findings of fact and conclusions of law. View "Cranston Police Retirees Action Committee v. City of Cranston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the superior court granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint alleging breach of contract and seeking a declaration that Defendants had breached an agreement, holding that it cannot be said that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.Plaintiff, Chariho Regional School District, sued Defendants, the Rhode Island Department of Education, the Rhode Island Department of Administration, the Rhode Island Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, and the former Commissioner of Education alleging that the state Defendants had breached paragraph 1(d) of an agreement to convey certain property to Plaintiff "provided that Chariho continues to provide career and technical programs to students" (the CTC transfer agreement). A hearing justice granted the state Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court vacated the order, holding (1) Plaintiff adequately pled a breach of paragraph 1(d) of the CTC transfer agreement; and (2) the hearing justice erred in finding that termination of the contract, as provided for in paragraph 3(a) of the CTC transfer agreement, represented Plaintiff's sole remedy for the state Defendants' breach. View "Chariho Regional School District v. State" on Justia Law

In this foreclosure action, the Supreme Court vacated the order of the superior court granting partial summary judgment in favor of Note Capital Group, Inc. and against Michele Perretta and Anna Perretta, holding that the Perrettas raised a genuine issue of material fact that precluded the grant of summary judgment.Specifically, the Court held (1) this appeal from the superior court’s interlocutory order was appropriate because the grant of partial summary judgment had an element of finality allowing Note Capital to foreclose on the Perrettas’ property; (2) the Perrettas lacked standing to challenge the validity of the assignment of the note and mortgage from American Residential Equities to GMAC Mortgage, LLC; but (3) the Perrettas raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the validity of the note. View "Note Capital Group, Inc. v. Perretta" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decree of the family court that terminated Mother's parental rights with respect to her minor son, holding that notice of the hearing date on the petition to terminate Mother's parental rights was improper as a matter of law and that the decree must be vacated and the matter remanded for a hearing with appropriate notice in accordance with R.I. Gen. Laws 15-7-9.The family court ordered that an advertisement be placed in a local newspaper notifying Mother the a hearing on the petition to terminate her parental rights would be held on October 3, 2017. Mother was not present at the October 3, 2017 hearing, and the court went forward with the hearing despite Mother's absence. The trial justice determined that Mother was unfit to parent and ordered that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court vacated the decree and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding (1) because there was no affidavit filed in advance of the family court order of notice by publication in accordance with R. I. Gen. Laws 15-7-9, the family court's order of advertisement was improper as a matter of law; and (2) Mother was entitled to procedural due process before the termination of her parental rights. View "In re Joziah B." on Justia Law