Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, the former wife of Defendant, filed a complaint seeking protection from abuse from Defendant. A magistrate of the family court entered a temporary order restraining and enjoining Defendant from contacting Plaintiff. The chief judge of the family court affirmed the magistrate’s order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s conduct was of the type that the General Assembly mandated could be the predicate for the issuance of a protective order; and (2) the magistrate did not exceed her authority in issuing a civil restraining order after determining that the restraining order was necessary to protect Plaintiff from Defendant’s harassment. View "Cavanaugh v. Cavanaugh" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a UPS driver, was delivering a package to the home of Defendants when he was bitten on his arm and leg by one of Defendants’ dogs. Plaintiff filed an action against Defendants, alleging that he was injured as a result of Defendants’ negligence in failing to secure their dogs. The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact about whether Defendants knew of the dog’s vicious propensity. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that material issues of fact existed that could permit a fact-finder that the dog did have a vicious propensity and that Defendants knew of it. View "Coogan v. Nelson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of six counts of first-degree sexual assault and four counts of second-degree sexual assault stemming from his unlawful conduct with his girlfriend’s daughter. Defendant was sentenced to fifty years, with twenty-five years suspended, with probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice (1) did not err in admitting evidence concerning prior acts of misconduct committed by Defendant against the complainant, including “play fighting” evidence and corporal punishment evidence; (2) did not err by allowing an examining physician to testify to statements made by the complainant during the course of her treatment; and (3) did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Watkins" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Rose Nulman Park Foundation, owned real property that was used as a park. In 2011, Defendants, Robert Lamoureux and Four Twenty Corporation, completed construction on a $1.8 million home. A prospective buyer of the home had a survey conducted which revealed that the building was entirely located on Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants, asserting that the structure constituted a continuing trespass on the property and requesting a mandatory injunction ordering Defendants to remove the structure. The trial justice concluded that a 13,000 square foot intrusion, amounting to six percent of the Nulman property, was not a de minimus encroachment and, accordingly, ordered Defendants to remove the structure. The Supreme Court affirmed after concluding that it would be unjust to order the transfer of title to a portion of the Nulman property to Defendants or to award only money damages, holding that injunctive relief was the appropriate remedy in this case. View "Rose Nulman Park Found. v. Four Twenty Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with several counts of first-degree child molestation and second-degree child molestation stemming from Defendant's unlawful conduct with the niece of his girlfriend. The case proceeded to trial. During the redirect-examination of the complaining witness, the trial justice admitted into evidence some nonspecific testimony about previous, uncharged acts of sexual misconduct. The jury eventually convicted Defendant of two counts of first-degree child molestation and three counts of second-degree child molestation. Defendant appealed, challenging the trial justice’s admission of the testimony about prior bad acts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion when she permitted the complaining witness to testify about other nonspecific evidence of prior bad acts. View "State v. Acevedo" on Justia Law

The Rhode Island Joint Reinsurance Association brought an interpleader action against multiple defendants for the purpose of determining the proper disposition of insurance proceeds. Bank of America, N.A. (BANA), one of the defendants, moved for summary judgment on the interpleader claim and against defendant Genoveva Santana-Sosa’s cross-claim. The superior court granted summary judgment for BANA, concluding that BANA was entitled to the entire amount of the insurance proceeds and that Santana-Sosa was entitled to none of the disputed funds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that BANA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "R.I. Joint Reinsurance Ass’n v. Santana-Sosa" on Justia Law

Plaintiff signed an adjustable-rate note evidencing a loan from Bank of America and executed a mortgage on property that secured the loan. Bank of America was designated as the Lender and the mortgagee. After Plaintiff defaulted on his loan, a foreclosure auction was held at which Celtic Roman Group placed a successful bid. Before Celtic could close on the property, Plaintiff filed a notice of lis pendens in the land evidence records. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint challenging Bank of America’s authority to foreclose on the property. The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no genuine issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff defaulted on his loan; (2) the foreclosure sale was lawfully noticed; and (3) Bank of America was the holder of the note at the time of foreclosure. View "McGovern v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law

In 1998, the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and John, Alfred, and Anna Tillinghast (Defendants) executed a consent agreement regarding the actions Defendants would take to remedy alleged violations of the Freshwater Wetlands Act from the establishment of five campsites in the Bowdish Lake Camping Area. When Defendants purportedly failed to comply with the consent agreement, the superior court appointed a master to resolve the issues in dispute. The master issued a report, and Defendants filed a motion asking the trial justice to approve the master’s report. After a hearing, the trial justice adopted the report and ordered that the master’s findings be implemented. Plaintiff, named in her official capacity as the director of the DEM, appealed. The Supreme Court denied and dismissed the appeal, holding that because the order confirming the master’s report was not final, the appeal was interlocutory and thus not properly before the Court. View "Coit v. Tillinghast" on Justia Law

After J.S., a juvenile, injured an individual with a knife, the state police filed two petitions against J.S., including a petition alleging that J.S. was delinquent due to having committed an offense that, if committed by an adult, would constitute an assault with a dangerous weapon. The family court found J.S. delinquent for committing an assault with a dangerous weapon and placed him on probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient legally competent evidence to support (1) the trial justice’s finding that the State presented sufficient evidence to disprove J.S.’s defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) the trial justice’s adjudication of Respondent as delinquent for having committed an assault with a dangerous weapon. View "In re J.S." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-general contractor entered into an agreement with Defendant-subcontractor to perform work on a project. A dispute arose between the parties when Plaintiff issued Defendant a notice of termination. The issue was submitted to arbitration, and both parties submitted claims to the arbitrator for money damages. The arbitrator found that Plaintiff’s termination of Defendant was wrongful and granted damages. Plaintiff sought to vacate the arbitrator’s award. The trial court concluded that a release signed by Defendant that waived all claims prior to a certain date barred Defendant’s claims. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that the arbitrator’s decision should have been allowed to stand because it showed due regard for the parties’ release and did not reach an irrational result. View "Berkshire Wilton Partners, LLC v. Bilray Demolition Co." on Justia Law