Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Husband filed a complaint for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences. Wife counterclaimed for sole custody of the parties’ two minor children, alimony, child support, and equitable distribution of the marital assets. After a trial, the trial justice dissolved the parties’ marriage, awarded the parties joint custody of their children, granted Wife physical placement of both children, ordered Husband to pay child support, and partitioned the marital assets. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the decree in regard to the issue of child support, holding that the trial justice failed to consider the child-support guidelines when determining the amount of child support; and (2) affirmed the final decree in all other respects. Remanded. View "Vieira v. Hussein-Vieira" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an attorney employed as a hearing officer for the Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (RIDE), filed a complaint alleging that RIDE and the Rhode Island Board Counsel on Elementary and Secondary Education (collectively, Defendants) violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) by failing to provide adequate notice of a September 2014 council meeting and by failing to provide any notice of meetings held by the Compensation Review Committee (CRC). The superior court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) Defendants violated the OMA by failing to provide adequate notice of the September 2014 meeting; and (2) the CRC is not a public body and, therefore, is not subject to the OMA. View "Pontarelli v. Rhode Island Board Council on Elementary and Secondary Education" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured on property owned by two individual owners. The unit owners together formed The 18-20 Woodland Court Condominium Association (Defendant). Just prior to the expiration of the relevant three-year statute of limitations, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the individual unit owners, as well as an entity referred to as “XYZ Company.” Nearly an entire year after the expiration of the statute of limitations, Plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint in order to add Defendant as a defendant. A hearing justice granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, concluding that the statute of limitations had run and that Plaintiff’s original complaint had not tolled the statute of limitations because Plaintiff knew of Defendant’s identity at the time she filed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute of limitations on her claim was not tolled pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 9-5-20 because Plaintiff knew the identity of Defendant before the statutory period expired. View "Garant v. Winchester" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, and conspiracy to commit murder. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the weight of the evidence did not support the verdicts in this case. The trial justice denied the motion. Thereafter, Defendant was sentenced to two mandatory consecutive sentences of life imprisonment for the murder and firearm convictions. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments of convictions, holding that the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence or clearly err when he credited the testimony of Defendant’s co-conspirators. View "State v. Lopez" on Justia Law

The City of Newport’s Utility Department, Water Division (Newport Water) filed a rate application with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) requesting a revenue increase. The PUC issued an order in docket No. 3818 ordering that money Newport Water owed to the City be paid back to the City under certain conditions. Newport Water subsequently filed another application for a rate increase - docket No. 4025. The PUC issued an order concluding that Newport Water had commenced the required repayment of its debt owed to the City. Portsmouth Water and Fire District (Portsmouth) petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court vacated the PUC’s order, concluding that the PUC order failed to enforce the order in docket No. 3818, and remanded to the PUC with directions to make more specific findings of fact to support the PUC’s conclusion that Newport Water complied with the order in docket No. 3818. This appeal concerned the PUC’s order on remand. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the PUC’s order in regard to its definition, identification, and quantification of “efficiencies” as it relates to the order in docket No. 3818; and (2) vacated the PUC’s order to the extent it allowed Newport Water to use $191,997 in excess revenues to pay down its debt to the City. View "Portsmouth Water and Fire District v. Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Michael Rose and RC&D, Inc. filed suit against Defendants Stephen Brusini and the law firm Orson & Brusini Ltd. alleging professional negligence and breach of contract. The hearing justice granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that there was no evidence of proximate cause linking Defendants’ alleged negligence and any damages Plaintiffs may have suffered. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that Rose submitted sufficient competent evidence to preclude the entry of summary judgment for defendants on a question of fact relating to Defendants’ liability. Remanded. View "Rose v. Brusini" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of assault with a dangerous weapon in a dwelling house and one count of breaking and entering of a dwelling house. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) with respect to the breaking and entering count, the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal and his motion for a new trial because the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant lacked consent to enter the house; and (2) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial on the assault with a dangerous weapon in a dwelling house count because the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence. View "State v. Grantley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a resident of Florida, was a resident of Rhode Island at the time of the contract in dispute. Defendant was a resident of New York. Plaintiff entered into a contract in New York regarding Plaintiff’s employment to serve as captain of Defendant’s sailboat. After Plaintiff was terminated, Plaintiff filed suit in a Rhode Island court, alleging breach of contract. Defendant answered, averring that Rhode Island did not have personal jurisdiction over him. The case proceeded to trial, and the trial justice concluded that Rhode Island could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that Defendant forfeited his jurisdictional defense of lack of personal jurisdiction through unjustified delay and active participation in litigation proceedings. View "Pullar v. Cappelli" on Justia Law

After two separate trials, the family court entered decrees finding dependency as to Respondent’s sons, King and Saint, determining that the children were actually suffering or likely to suffer physical and/or emotional harm and that it was in the children’s best interest to be placed out-of-home. Both children were committed to the care, custody, and control of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families. Respondent appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decrees of the family court, holding that the trial justice’s findings of dependency as to both King and Saint were supported by clear and convincing evidence. View "In re King J." on Justia Law

In 1996, Matthew Cote accepted an employment opportunity with Richmond Ready-Mix (RRM) when John Aiello explained that Plaintiff could purchase RRM in the future. Over the years, Aiello repeatedly assured Cote that he would purchase RRM. In 2005, Aiello sold RRM to Peter Calcagni. Cote subsequently filed an action against the John and Anna-Maria Aiello (together, the Aiellos) alleging breach of an implied contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The trial justice found for the Aiellos on all claims, concluding that Cote failed to prove the existence of an implied contract to purchase RRM and that Aiello’s promises to Plaintiff did not support a claim for promissory estoppel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence and was not otherwise clearly wrong in dismissing the complaint. View "Cote v. Aiello" on Justia Law