Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs sued the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence (Defendant) alleging that a visiting priest sexually abused them more than four decades ago. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, concluding that the statute of limitations barred Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that their inability to recall the abuse tolled the statute of limitations and that the trial justice erred in denying their request to seek discovery on their alternate tolling theory that Defendant fraudulently concealed their causes of action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under R.I. Gen. Laws 9-1-19, repressed recollection, in and of itself, is not a viable tolling mechanism against nonperpetrator defendants in childhood sexual abuse cases; and (2) the trial justice did not err when she denied Plaintiffs’ request to seek discovery on the alternate tolling theory. View "Hyde v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence" on Justia Law

Defendants defaulted on a loan. At the ensuing foreclosure proceedings, Plaintiff purchased the property securing the loan. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants seeking to secure the resulting deficiency. Count 1 alleged breach of the promissory note against both defendants, and count 2 alleged a breach of guaranty against one defendant. Defendants counterclaimed. The trial justice granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and dismissed the counterclaims. The trial justice then awarded Plaintiff attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the superior court’s judgment, holding (1) the court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on claims of the breach of promissory note and breach of guaranty, as well as its dismissal of Defendants’ counterclaims; but (2) the superior court erred in awarding Plaintiff attorney’s fees without considering the testimony or affidavit of independent counsel. View "Tri-Town Constr. Co. v. Commerce Park Assocs. 12, LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree arson. The trial justice sentenced Defendant to a term of twenty-five years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding (1) any error on the part of the trial court in admitting into evidence a video recording of Defendant’s custodial police interrogation, the error was not so prejudicial as to require a new trial; and (2) the trial court did not misconceive or overlook material evidence or otherwise err by denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Gaudreau" on Justia Law

This case involved a shooting that occurred in the City of Woonsocket, which left Ikey Wilson with severe injury to his stomach and required the amputation of his right leg. Defendant Christian Rosado appealed his conviction on two separate counts of assault with a dangerous weapon (firearm). Defendant maintained that the hearing justice erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on what he perceived to have been the state’s discovery violation. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rhode Island v. Rosado" on Justia Law

Applicant Robert Dominick appealed the denial of his application for postconviction relief, arguing the trial court erred in finding that he failed to present newly discovered evidence that would have entitled him to a new trial. Applicant was convicted in 2009 for the assault and battery of a person over sixty years old. The victim testified that an altercation arose when she was mowing her lawn, and Applicant yelled at her to get off his lawn. Applicant shoved her against a granite marker pole located on her property, causing scrapes to her arm. The lawn mower was damaged as a result of the altercation. During the hearing and in his filings before the Superior Court, applicant relied on two items he described as "newly discovered": (1) the picture of the lawn mower, coupled with the information that Beltram had disposed of the lawn mower, and (2) an eyewitness' testimony. Applicant claimed that during the civil trial he learned for the first time that the victim had destroyed the lawn mower involved in their altercation but that she had kept a photograph of the lawn mower. He claimed that the photograph could have been used to impeach the victim's testimony at the criminal trial that the lawn mower had been damaged as a result of applicant’s conduct because the photograph did not depict any damage to the lawn. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, the Rhode Island Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in finding Applicant failed to present new evidence, and affirmed in all respects. View "Dominick v. Rhode Island" on Justia Law

In two consolidated actions, Edward Voccola (Mr. Voccola) sought to recover property which he alleged his daughter, Patricia, had wrongfully transferred. Patricia and her company, Red Fox Realty, LLC, were named as defendants. Mr. Voccola died during the pendency of the actions, and Mr. Voccola’s children, Barbara and Edward, in their capacities as co-executors of Mr. Voccola’s estate, were substituted as plaintiffs. The superior court entered final judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err when she (1) concluded that Mr. Voccola’s signatures authorizing the transfer of the properties to Red Fox were not genuine; (2) determined that the transfer of Mr. Voccola’s properties was not a gift to Patricia; and (3) awarded Patricia $82,000 on her counterclaim. View "Voccola v. Forte" on Justia Law

In 2012, defendant was charged with simple assault, G.L. 1956 11-5-3. On February 15, 2013, a separate criminal information was filed charging defendant with “break[ing] and enter[ing] the dwelling of [defendant’s sister] without the consent of the owner,” G.L. 1956 11-8-2 and 12-29-5. Both charges were tried on a jury-waived basis. Defendant moved to dismiss the breaking and entering charge “based on the fact that [the state had] not presented evidence to establish the crime of breaking and entering.” Defense counsel stated: “I’m suggesting .. that you apply the statutory language for ... willful trespass ...my client is most likely guilty of.” The trial justice found her guilty of simple assault; with respect to breaking and entering, he concluded that it had been established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of the misdemeanor offense of willful trespass. The justice sentenced her to a one-year suspended sentence with one year of probation on each count, to run consecutively. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting arguments that, concerning the simple assault, defendant’s speedy trial right was violated; that willful trespass is not a lesser-included offense of breaking and entering; and that the trial justice erred in denying her motion to dismiss the breaking and entering charge. View "State v. Connery" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claims that on April 30, 2011 he sustained personal injuries during a “melee” at defendants’ Providence nightclub. On April 18, 2014, he filed a complaint that erroneously stated that the incident occurred on November 4, 2010. On April 20, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss, based on the three-year statute of limitations. Defendants’ counsel certified that he mailed the motion and a memorandum of law to plaintiff’s counsel, in addition to filing via the recently-installed electronic filing system now required by the Superior Court Rules. The motion’s hearing occurred as scheduled, on June 16. Plaintiff did not appear. On June 23, plaintiff moved to vacate the dismissal, indicating that his counsel did not receive notice. On June 25, 2015, final judgment entered dismissing plaintiff’s claim and plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to correct the date. Plaintiff’s counsel argued excusable neglect and that there was no issue of notice because the police report issued in connection with the incident, of which defendants had a copy, contained the correct date. The court denied the motion to vacate, but did not rule on plaintiff’s motion to amend. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, discerning no extenuating circumstances to excuse plaintiff’s failure to object to or to attend the hearing on defendants’ motion. View "Santos v. D. Laikos, Inc." on Justia Law

Morse, a long-time fire-rescue captain, had separate work-related back injuries in 2009 and 2011. In both cases he was eventually released to work. Morse injured his back again while lifting a patient during a 2012 rescue call. After the third injury, he did not return to work. Pursuant to the Providence Code of Ordinances, Morse was evaluated by three independent medical examiners. There was disagreement concerning whether the code covers disability as the result of multiple injuries. One of the consultants found Morse not to be disabled. The Retirement Board of the Employees Retirement System of the City of Providence denied Morse’s application for an accidental disability pension, based solely on the board’s self-imposed “unanimity rule,” requiring that all three physicians agree that the applicant was permanently disabled as a result of a work-related injury. The Rhode Island Supreme Court quashed the decision. The board’s adoption of the unanimity rule effectively abandoned its authority to a single disagreeing physician. Because the board failed to make any factual findings with regard to the petitioner’s application, this matter was remanded to the board for reconsideration. View "Morse v. Employees Ret. Sys. of the City of Providence" on Justia Law

Cashman sued, alleging Cardi provided defective cofferdams for construction of the Sakonnet River Bridge. Cofferdams are temporary watertight enclosures that are pumped dry to expose the bottom of a body of water so that construction can occur. During discovery, Cashman sought, and Cardi refused to produce, computer models and draft reports that had been “considered by” its testifying engineering expert to determine “certain stress and loads that are going to be placed on certain points on this cofferdam,” including models “that [the expert] created which [he] may not have relied on but certainly would’ve considered” and draft reports. Cardi argued that Rule 26(b)(4)(A) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure does not allow discovery of materials “considered by” an expert in forming an expert opinion. The hearing justice concluded that he did not have the authority to compel production of the material. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, after considering interpretations of the corresponding Federal Rule. The state rule is “clear and unambiguous” and is confined to discovery through interrogatories or deposition. It does not provide for the disclosure of documents. View "Cashman Equip. Corp., Inc. v. Cardi Corp., Inc." on Justia Law