Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff was injured at a park owned by the Town of South Kingstown while she was a spectator at a Little League baseball game organized by the South Kingstown Little League (Defendant). Plaintiff brought this complaint alleging that Defendant was negligent in maintaining the premises of the baseball field. The hearing justice granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, concluding that Defendant had no duty to inspect and maintain the park where Defendant had no ownership interest in the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the Town was responsible for maintenance of the park, Defendant did not owe a duty of care to Plaintiff. View "Carlson v. Town of South Kingstown" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and related crimes. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in (1) admitting prior testimony of a witness at a coconspirator’s trial about Defendant’s level of intoxication on the night of the shooting; and (2) denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any prior testimony that was admitted, by any means, regarding Defendant’s level of intoxication was immaterial to his defense, and Defendant did not suffer prejudice; and (2) the trial justice properly assessed the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses and articulated adequate reasons for denying Defendant’s motion. View "State v. Offley" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the children of William B. Ross, appealed the probate of William's estate. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenged the fifth and final accounting of the decedent’s guardian and sister, Nancy Howard, alleging that Howard breached her fiduciary duty, failed to correct a conflict of interest, and violated the law in failing to obtain approval for the challenged accounting. The trial justice found in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiffs’ appeal of the probate court order approving the fifth and final accounting. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the trial justice overlooked or misconceived the evidence presented during the trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in finding in favor of Defendants. View "In re Estate of Ross" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of second degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to a term of forty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in (1) instructing the jury concerning Defendant’s claim of accidental homicide; (2) allowing the State some flexibility to pose questions in yes-or-no form; (3) failing to declare a mistrial after the prosecutor discussed testimony with the State’s witness, a medical examiner, during breaks in the witness’s testimony; and (4) allowing admission of a seven-and-a-half minute video depicting the scene of the murder, including the victim’s body. View "State v. Fry" on Justia Law

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