Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Child came under the care of the State after an alleged alcohol relapse by Mother. At that time, Father was incarcerated. The Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed a petition alleging that Child was neglected. As to Father, the trial justice found by clear and convincing evidence that Father was unable to care for Child due to his confinement and that Father neglected Child by failing to provide Child with a minimum degree of care, supervision or guardianship and without proper parental care and supervision. The family court then ordered Child committed to the custody of DCYF. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that legally competent evidence existed to support the trial justice’s finding that Child had been neglected by Father. View "In re Kurt H." on Justia Law

This case arose from the Preservation Society of Newport County’s (the Society) application for the construction of a Welcome Center near the entrance of a well-known Newport mansion. Bellevue-Ochre Point Neighborhood Association (BOPNA) initiated a declaratory judgment action seeking various declarations that the Welcome Center was prohibited under the City of Newport Zoning Ordinance. The Society filed a motion to dismiss. The hearing justice granted the motion, concluding that the issues presented in the complaint were within the jurisdiction of Newport zoning officials to determine and were inappropriate for a declaratory judgment action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice correctly determined that the issues raised in BOPNA’s complaint were within the zoning board’s authority and jurisdiction and were therefore inappropriate for resolution in an action seeking declaratory judgment. View "Bellevue-Ochre Point Neighborhood Ass’n v. Preservation Society of Newport County" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of several criminal counts, including burglary and conspiracy to commit burglary. The aggregate sentences for all of Defendant’s convictions totaled thirty-five years. Defendant subsequently moved to reduce his sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing, inter alia, that he accepted responsibility for his actions and that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. The hearing justice denied Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence. On appeal, Defendant argued that his violated the Sixth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing justice was within his discretion to confirm Defendant’s punishment; (2) Defendant’s constitutional challenges were not cognizable in the context of a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 35; and (3) even if Defendant could raise constitutional challenges under Rule 35, his arguments lacked merit. View "State v. Ciresi" on Justia Law

James Dias suffered serious injuries in a motorcycle accident. At the time of the accident, Dias and his wife (together, Defendants) were insured under two policies. One policy, which Progressive Northern Insurance Co. underwrote, covered the motorcycle that Defendant was operating when he was injured, and the second policy, underwritten by Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. (Plaintiff), covered Defendants’ automobiles. Dias sought to recover underinsured-motorist benefits from Progressive Casualty, asserting that he was entitled to those benefits under R.I. Gen. Laws 27-7-2.1(i). Plaintiff denied coverage and then filed a declaratory judgment action requesting that the superior court declare that section 27-7-2.1(i) is not applicable because Progressive Northern is a separate and distinct corporation and business entity from Progressive Casualty and, therefore, Plaintiff may disclaim coverage with respect to Dias’ claim. The hearing justice granted summary judgment for Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, with regard to section 27-7-2.1(i), Plaintiff and Progressive Northern are separate and distinct entities, each of which is also distinct from its common sole shareholder, The Progressive Corporation. View "Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Dias" on Justia Law

In 2009, Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of possession of between one to five kilograms of a controlled substance classified as marijuana, with knowledge and intent. In 2013, Appellant filed an application for postconviction relief seeking to vacate his 2009 nolo contendere plea, arguing that he neither knew nor understood the charges against him because a Haitian-Creole interpreter was not provided at his plea colloquy and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The hearing justice denied the postconviction-relief application. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice did not err in finding that Appellant understood the plea colloquy. View "Duvere v. State" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a dispute over the construction of a backyard patio at Defendant’s property. Defendants, the property owners, hired a general contractor, who contracted with Plaintiff for masonry work. Plaintiff filed suit, asserting that Defendants owed it money beyond that paid to it by the general contractor. At issue during the bench trial was whether Plaintiff was paid to construct Defendants’ backyard patio. The trial justice ultimately entered judgment for Defendants. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in his factual determinations and credibility assessments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice neither overlooked nor misconceived material evidence. View "A. Salvati Masonry Inc. v. Andreozzi" on Justia Law

In 2004, Livia was born to Marissa Levesque and Anthony Bucci. In 2013, Levesque and Derek Gray filed a petition for termination of Bucci’s parental rights and for the adoption of Livia by Gray. After a trial, the trial justice (1) terminated Bucci’s parental rights, deeming Bucci unfit based on abandonment grounds; and (2) granted Gray’s petition for adoption, finding it in Livia’s best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice’s determination that Bucci abandoned Livia rested on sufficient factual findings and credibility determinations, which were supported by legally competent evidence. View "In re Livia B.L." on Justia Law

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