Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial. The charges against Defendant arose from an incident involving Jessica Nunez and Defendant’s use of a knife on one date and a shooting on a subsequent date in which Theodora Nunez, Jessica’s mother, was injured. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in his analysis or conclusion in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial; and (2) the trial justice did not commit clear error or overlook or misconceive material and relevant evidence in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Diaz" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the correct statutory interpretation of the manner in which state education aid funds received by the Bristol Warren Regional School District (the district) should be calculated and apportioned to the towns of Bristol and Warren. The superior court granted Warren’s petition for writ of mandamus, injunctive relief, and a complaint for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court (1) did not err when it failed to bar Warren’s claims pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata; (2) did not err by declining to dismiss the action because other school districts had not been joined; (3) did not err when it did not give full deference to the Rhode Island Department of Education’s interpretation of the statutory framework concerning the proper manner of calculating and allocating state aid to regional school districts; and (4) did not misinterpret the governing statutory scheme or ignore the statutory definition of “community” as it applies to funding the district. View "Town of Warren v. Bristol Warren Regional School District" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial justice’s determination that Plaintiff’s reappointment to his fourth consecutive two-year term as assistant zoning inspector in the Town of North Smithfield did not constitute a contract of employment. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging breach of employment contract and a violation of his constitutional rights after his employment was terminated for budgetary reasons. The trial court entered final judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial justice’s decision, holding that Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to support his contention that a valid contract existed. View "Andoscia v. Town of North Smithfield" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a claim against Testator’s estate for $2 million. The superior court awarded Plaintiff the amount requested under the provisions of the Testator’s last will and testament. The hearing justice then reduced the $2 million by the proceeds of a life insurance policy, ultimately granting summary judgment to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,550,000. Thereafter, the hearing justice awarded Plaintiff the requested amount of attorney’s fees but denied her request for prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the trial justice, holding that the trial justice erred in granting summary judgment where this matter required fact-finding and conclusions of law with respect to Testator’s intent because the will did not clearly specify under what circumstances Plaintiff was to receive the sum of $2 million or other amount; and (2) an earlier stipulation entered in the family court did not control the outcome of this case in accordance with the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Remanded. View "Glassie v. Doucette" on Justia Law

In case concerning a lease dispute, the Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiff was not in privity of contract, either through a lease agreement or an attainment agreement, and could not challenge the validity of the original lease or any of its amendments. Plaintiff filed a four-count complaint against Defendants. The superior court granted Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the declarations sought. On the eve of trial, the superior court granted full summary judgment for Defendants and entered final judgment for Defendants, concluding that Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Defendants and lacked standing to assert the allegations raised in its complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed. View "1112 Charles, L.P. v. Fornel Entertainment, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the executrix of the estate of the decedent, brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the estate was entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under a policy issued by Quincy Mutual policy. The motion justice determined that the decedent was “occupying” his owned-but-not-insured motorcycle at the time of his fatal injury, and therefore, an exclusion of the policy applied. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that summary judgment was inappropriate because the decedent was separated from his motorcycle at the time of his death and, therefore, was not occupying the motorcycle as that term was defined in the Quincy Mutual policy. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to what impact caused the decedent’s fatal injuries and the time or distance between them, precluding summary judgment. View "Jackson v. Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated an order of the superior court denying the State’s request to adjudge Anthony Parrillo a probation violator based upon the hearing justice’s finding that Parrillo was no longer on probation at the time that he allegedly committed the offense of felony assault. The Court held (1) Parrillo was on probation and subject to being adjudged at the time he allegedly committed felony assault; (2) the hearing justice did not commit an error of law when he held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not bar the state from seeking to adjudge Parrillo a probation violator; and (3) the case must be remanded so that a hearing justice may address Parrillo’s due process argument in the first instance. View "State v. Parrillo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the trial justice did not err in finding that a 1909 Plat and Indenture did not reveal manifest intent to dedicate an over two-mile stretch of beach in the Misquamicut area of Westerly, Rhode Island to the public. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the current beachfront landowners in the disputed area, holding that the trial justice did not err in finding that the evidence the State put forth - including the 1909 Plat and Indenture and and the extrinsic evidence - failed to demonstrate manifest intent by the Plattors to dedicate the beach area to the public. View "Kilmartin v. Barbuto" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of first-degree sexual assault and four counts of second-degree child molestation sexual assault. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of conviction, holding that the superior court did not commit reversible error in (1) denying Defendant’s motion to pass the case after the State alluded to an “empty chair”; (2) failing to exclude the victim’s testimony that she had witnessed Defendant inappropriately touching another small child after the child not be located in order to corroborate the allegation; and (3) denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on two counts in the indictment. View "State v. Cavanaugh" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted on three separate counts of embezzlement and one count of conspiracy to commit embezzlement. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial justice denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a new trial and in misconceiving the evidence, and in admitting certain evidence that Defendant alleged was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice conducted the appropriate analysis and was not clearly wrong in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial; and (2) the trial justice was not clearly wrong in finding that the probative value of the evidence at issue outweighed its prejudicial effect. View "State v. McDonald" on Justia Law