The case concerned whether a privately owned construction and demolition debris transfer station qualified as a permitted use under section 410-12.5(1) of the Pawtucket Zoning Ordinance, which lists 'refuse transfer station' among public, semipublic, education, and recreation uses in a manufacturing zone. After the planning director invalidated an initial zoning certificate and the zoning board upheld that the use was not allowed without a variance, the Superior Court reversed and ordered the board to issue compliance. The Rhode Island Supreme Court granted certiorari and quashed the Superior Court order, holding that a C&D transfer station is distinct from a refuse transfer station and that the ordinance does not authorize private operation of such a facility. The court reasoned that the ordinance's context and listed uses indicate municipal involvement and do not encompass large-scale private C&D operations.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether the Lincoln town administrator could terminate the chief of police without cause or a hearing under the town charter, despite an employment contract specifying an indefinite term. Plaintiff Robert Kells, appointed in 2001 and with a ratified contract in 2002, was fired immediately by the new administrator in 2003; he obtained a temporary restraining order and later summary judgment enjoining removal without following charter procedures. The Superior Court ruled that the charter requires removal only 'for the good of the service' after a hearing on specific charges, that the contract aligned with these protections, and awarded attorney's fees; the Supreme Court affirmed on de novo review, finding no genuine issues of material fact and that the administrator could not bypass the required process.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Horton, the defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree child molestation sexual assault for an incident involving an eight-year-old victim at a party and received a twenty-year sentence. Horton appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred by overruling objections to the prosecutor's closing argument remarks, by denying his motion for a new trial after weighing witness testimony, and by admitting pictures not disclosed during discovery. The Rhode Island Supreme Court denied the appeal and upheld the conviction, concluding that the trial justice committed no reversible error on any of the three points raised.

criminal law

In State v. Gautier, the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed whether a finding at a probation-violation hearing—that the state had not proven the defendant murdered Jeffrey Indellicati—precluded a subsequent criminal prosecution for the same killing under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The court held that collateral estoppel does not bar the criminal indictment, expressly overruling its prior decision in State v. Chase to the extent it suggested otherwise. The reasoning centered on the distinct purposes and standards of proof in probation-revocation proceedings versus full criminal trials, noting that the former are not equivalent adjudications for estoppel purposes and citing supporting authority from multiple jurisdictions. The case arose after the defendant, already on probation for drug offenses, was alleged to have committed the murder during a domestic dispute.

criminal lawprocedure

Blue Coast, Inc. and Suarez Corporation Industries had a profitable supplier relationship involving costume jewelry until Suarez accused Blue Coast of underplating items below contract specifications, leading to litigation with claims including breach of contract, fraud, and breach of warranty. The dispute centered on the parties' course of dealing through bids, specifications sheets, and purchase orders that arrived after production had begun, raising questions about whether those orders represented the complete agreement and whether parol evidence of prior understandings could be considered. The court reviewed the contractual formation process, the timing of the purchase order terms, and related evidentiary issues to resolve the parties' obligations.

business & regulatory

In F.C.C., Inc. v. Reuter, a contractor sought to enforce a mechanics’ lien against property owners for approximately $128,000 in unpaid work on a single-family home after a dispute led to termination of the project. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the owners on the ground that the Rhode Island mechanics’ lien statute was unconstitutional for failing to provide adequate procedural due process before or immediately after the lien attached. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute as amended in 2003 by the addition of § 34-28-17.1—which permits an interested party to seek an expedited order to show cause why the lien should not be invalidated—satisfies constitutional standards. Relying on its earlier decision in Gem Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Rossi, the court remanded the case for further proceedings on the validity of the lien and the owners’ other claims.

propertyprocedure