Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder, possessing a firearm after having previously been convicted of a violent crime, and other crimes. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive life sentences for first-degree murder and using a firearm during a violent crime. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in excluding the testimony of Stephen Bodden on the grounds that Bodden effectively invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s appeal was not properly before the Court; and (2) nonetheless, the trial justice did not err when he ruled that Bodden properly invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege during the voir dire examination. View "State v. Barros" on Justia Law

Kevin Sweet executed a promissory note to Richard Boucher secured by a mortgage on real estate. Sweet defaulted on the note, and Boucher commenced foreclosure proceedings on the real estate. After a foreclosure sale held at a public auction, Boucher purchased the property for $35,000. Boucher then brought an action to collect the deficiency on the note. The superior court granted summary judgment for Boucher in the amount of $55,532, plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. A second justice vacated the summary judgment and, upon rehearing, granted summary judgment for Boucher in the amount of $48,155, plus interest and attorney’s fees. Sweet appealed, arguing that the hearing justice erred by not considering Boucher’s failure to adhere to the terms of sale. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice properly grand summary judgment because Sweet failed to produce evidence demonstrating the impropriety of the foreclosure sale. View "Boucher v. Sweet" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of felony assault on a police officer, simple assault on a police officer, resisting arrest, driving under the influence of alcohol, and obstructing a police officer. During trial, the testimony each side presented diverged significantly, and the trial justice’s guilt assessment turned on his impression of witness credibility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that sufficient credible and competent evidence supported the trial justice’s guilt determinations on all counts beyond a reasonable doubt, and the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive any material evidence in reaching his decision. View "State v. Edwards" on Justia Law