Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff operated a Wendy’s restaurant in East Greenwich. One defendant had received permission to build a new McDonald’s restaurant with a drive-through window on property located down the street. Plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction and a writ of mandamus to prevent the construction of the drive-through facility until McDonald’s first submitted a special-use permit application for the drive-through window to the Town of East Greenwich’s Zoning Board of Review. The superior court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all counts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice correctly concluded that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the amended East Greenwich Zoning Ordinance permitted drive-through uses as a matter of right. View "CCF, LLC v. Pimental" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that she was shopping at a Walgreens store when she was hit and injured by a ball that an employee of Walgreens had thrown. The trial justice eventually dismissed the case with prejudice “for failure to proceed at trial” after first denying Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that, in light of the unusual circumstances of this case, the trial justice abused her discretion in dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of prosecution and in denying Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance and/or mistrial. View "Cotter v. Dias" on Justia Law

Defendant, an attorney, represented Plaintiff in post-final judgment divorce proceedings. Defendant later withdrew as counsel with the family court’s approval. Three years later, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging legal malpractice, negligence, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The superior court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant on each of Plaintiff’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s legal malpractice and fraud claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and the trial justice did not err in concluding that the discovery rule did not toll the statute of limitations; (2) Plaintiff’s malpractice claims necessarily failed because she did not retain an expert witness to testify in support of her case; and (3) Plaintiff’s remaining claims on appeal were wholly without merit. View "Behroozi v. Kirshenbaum" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, sixteen retirees from non teaching union positions with the City of Pawtucket school department, sought reimbursement of the health insurance co-payments that they paid after Defendants - the City, the school department, and the City’s school committee - allegedly breached a series of collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment entered in favor of Plaintiffs, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether Defendants breached the CBAs when they billed Plaintiffs for the health insurance co-payments. View "Botelho v. City of Pawtucket Sch. Dep’t" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs allowed a wind turbine to be built on their property in North Kingstown. None of the electricity produced by this wind turbine was sold to the public but, rather, was sold directly to National Grid. The Town of North Kingstown assessed the wind turbine at a value of $1.9 and sought payment of annual tangible personal property taxes. Plaintiffs appealed the assessment, arguing that the wind turbine was tax exempt. Both the Northtown Tax Assessor and the North Kingstown Tax Board of Review denied Plaintiffs’ appeal. Plaintiffs subsequently brought this action against Defendant, in her capacity as the Town Tax Assessor. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, concluding that the wind turbine was exempt from taxation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs qualified for the exemption listed in R.I. Gen. Laws 44-3-3(22), which exempts manufacturing machinery and equipment acquired or used by a manufacturer from taxation. View "DePasquale v. Cwiek" on Justia Law

Sophie Danforth entered into a purchase and sales agreement (PSA) with Timothy and Rebecca More, pursuant to which Danforth agreed to sell, and the Mores agreed to purchase, certain real estate. The PSA provided that $30,000 would be paid as a deposit at the time the PSA was executed. The Mores failed to appear at the scheduled closing. Thereafter, Danforth filed an amended complaint alleging breach of contract, requesting that she be allowed to retain the Mores’ deposit, and seeking declaratory relief, asking the court to construe the terms of the PSA and to order the escrow agent to disburse the deposit to Danforth. The hearing justice granted summary judgment in favor of Danforth, concluding that Danforth was entitled to retain the deposit. The court further denied Danforth’s motion for attorney’s fees but awarded prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the grant of summary judgment in favor of Danforth, the award of prejudgment interest to Danforth, and the denial of attorneys’ fees. View "Danforth v. More" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon and other firearm-related offenses. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a new trial because two key witnesses were not credible and the forensic evidence failed to conclusively link him to the shooting. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no basis for concluding that the trial justice committed clear error or that he overlooked or misconceived material evidence when he determined that the weight of the evidence supported the convictions and thus denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Lopez" on Justia Law

In 2008, Plaintiffs filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the original master declaration creating Goat Island South - A Waterfront Condominium (GIS) was invalid and the second amended restated master declaration (SAR) was void ab initio. The hearing justice granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all claims, ruling that some claims were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised in earlier, related, litigation and that those claims were barred by the doctrine of estoppel by deed. The hearing justice also determined that the SAR was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs’ first two claims were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and estoppel by deed; (2) the SAR is valid; (3) summary judgment in favor of the individually named GIS executive board defendants was appropriate; and (4) the hearing justice did not err in denying Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint. View "IDC Props., Inc. v. Goat Island S. Condo. Ass’n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was the beneficiary of a charitable trust. Included within the trust was a provision allowing Plaintiff to live rent-free in a certain property. When Plaintiff exercised his right to occupy the property and allowed his parents to move in in violation of the trust provisions, the trustee of the trust instituted legal action to evict Plaintiff and his parents. Plaintiff later filed a complaint against Defendant, the attorney who advised the trustee on the issue, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The superior court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims, concluding that Defendant did not owe Plaintiff a duty while he represented the trustee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the complaint was properly dismissed because Defendant did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care with regard to his representation of the trustee. View "Audette v. Poulin" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs - Jazmine Wray and Reginald Green - brought a negligence suit against Defendants - Roy and Antonio Green - as a result of a three-vehicle rear-end collision, claiming that, as a result of the collision, they experienced pain and suffering and incurred medical bills and lost wages. One of the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, as Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence to prove that the defendant breached his duty of care. View "Wray v. Green" on Justia Law