Francis Flaherty

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

This case arose from a 1990 lawsuit by Mary D'Amico against Johnston Partners and later Garofalo & Associates for alleged property damage caused by construction-related encroachment and surface water runoff. Garofalo filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1996, which concluded in 1997 with a confirmed reorganization plan; years later, Garofalo sought summary judgment on the ground that the bankruptcy discharge extinguished D'Amico's claim, while D'Amico moved to substitute Garofalo's insurer Evanston under Rhode Island General Laws § 27-7-2.4, which permits direct actions against an insurer when the insured has filed for bankruptcy. The Superior Court denied the substitution motion, interpreting the statute to require that the direct action be brought before the bankruptcy case ended. The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute's plain language imposes no timing requirement tied to the bankruptcy proceedings and that courts may not add such a condition through interpretation. The Court therefore allowed the substitution of the insurer as defendant.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves Keith Werner's appeal of his 1993 Rhode Island convictions for robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and carrying a pistol without a license, arising from an armed robbery of the West Warwick Credit Union. Werner, already serving a Massachusetts prison sentence, challenged the convictions on grounds that the state violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act by not bringing him to trial within required time limits and that the trial court erred in instructing the jury about the reliability of extrajudicial photo identifications versus in-person identifications. The Rhode Island Supreme Court denied the appeal, holding that the issues had been raised and rejected in Werner's prior appeals of other convictions, so the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred relitigation. The court recounted the underlying facts of the robbery and Werner's criminal history but focused its ruling on the preclusive effect of earlier decisions rather than reexamining the merits.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was a legal malpractice action brought by plaintiff James Canavan against the law firm Lovett, Schefrin and Harnett and related defendants, arising from the firm's handling of liability and underinsured motorist insurance claims following Canavan's 1988 work-related car accident. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that the suit was barred by the three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice actions under G.L. 1956 § 9-1-14.3. The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated that judgment, holding that the record did not show a lay plaintiff exercising reasonable diligence would have discovered the alleged malpractice earlier than three years before filing and declining to apply the continuous representation doctrine.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Michael Andrade sued police officer David Perry and the Town of South Kingstown for negligence after a 1997 car accident in which Perry was on duty, resulting in a $75,000 jury verdict against both defendants. The trial court denied a motion to amend the complaint to specify Perry's individual capacity but granted a post-judgment motion to add statutory prejudgment interest to the award against Perry, rejecting arguments based on the Governmental Tort Liability Act and prior precedent like Feeney v. Napolitano. On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding that prejudgment interest may be imposed on municipal employees for tort judgments even when acting within official duties, as the statutory interest bar and damage caps apply only to the municipality itself, and no explicit individual-capacity pleading is required to impose liability on the employee.

torts & liability

The case concerned landowners in Providence's Capital Center District who challenged the city's retroactive property tax assessments, which applied a $110 per square foot condemnation valuation selectively to their parcels for back taxes from 1991 to 1996, resulting in liens totaling over $3.5 million. A prior Superior Court ruling had deemed the assessments arbitrary and illegal, ordering the city to expunge them and enjoining collection. When the city failed to issue clean municipal lien certificates reflecting that expungement, the plaintiffs petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel compliance along with attorneys' fees. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's grant of mandamus and fees, holding that the city had a clear legal duty to remove the invalid assessments from its records and that the plaintiffs had no adequate alternative remedy.

taxespropertyprocedure

The case involved an investor, Roger Carlsten, who lost his $120,000 investment in a company after purchasing securities through broker-dealer Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc., and subsequently pursued claims of fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, and securities law violations via NASD arbitration. The arbitration panel awarded Carlsten $72,000 plus interest and a $2,000 sanction but denied punitive damages, without providing any explanation. Gruss appealed the Superior Court's confirmation of the award, arguing it was irrational, in manifest disregard of the law regarding disclaimers, interest calculations, and comparative negligence. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the confirmation, holding that arbitration awards are subject to limited judicial review, the NASD code does not require reasoned decisions unless requested, and there was no basis to find the panel disregarded the law given the absence of any explanatory findings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Illas v. Przybyla, plaintiff David Illas sued the Town of Scituate and others for negligence and false imprisonment after he was arrested and detained in 1999 based on an outstanding warrant that had actually been withdrawn years earlier. The warrant stemmed from his cousin's repeated impersonation of Illas during traffic stops and court proceedings in 1991-1992, which led to charges and a bench warrant being issued in Illas's name before the cousin confessed and the case was dismissed. The trial court granted summary judgment to the town, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Illas failed to establish the elements of false imprisonment because the detention was privileged under the apparent authority of the warrant still listed in police records. The court also rejected claims of a special duty owed by the town and noted procedural deficiencies in derivative claims by other family members.

torts & liabilitycriminal lawprocedure

The case involved Norman Laurence's appeal from his convictions for first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and breaking and entering in connection with the killing of Betty Jo Gardiner, whom he feared would report his involvement in a home break-in. The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed claims concerning the trial process, including issues with counsel representation and evidentiary rulings. The court denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible errors in the proceedings below.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Torres, the defendant was convicted of three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon arising from a shooting outside a nightclub. On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court considered whether the trial court's exclusion of the defendant's family members from the courtroom during jury selection violated his right to a public trial under the Sixth Amendment. The court held that the exclusion was unjustified and infringed the defendant's constitutional rights, which carry a presumption of prejudice. It therefore reversed the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between condominium associations and a developer over the status of undeveloped parcels and common elements in a Goat Island condominium complex governed by the Rhode Island Condominium Act. The plaintiffs claimed that the developer's reserved development rights had expired on December 31, 1994, causing title to the underlying land and common property to vest in the unit owners in fee simple. The defendants argued that amendments to the master declaration validly extended those rights and that they retained ownership or exclusive use rights in the master units and limited common elements. The hearing justice granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, ruling that the development rights had expired and could not be extended without unanimous consent of all affected owners. The core reasoning centered on the statutory definitions of master units, limited common elements, and the requirements for amending declarations or extending rights under the Act after the initial reservation period.

property

In this civil case, plaintiff Kenneth Castellucci sued defendant Mark Battista for assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, trespass, and invasion of privacy after a 1998 home invasion and physical attack, which followed the defendant's romantic involvement with the plaintiff's estranged wife. Battista had previously pled nolo contendere to related criminal charges of breaking and entering, carrying a pistol without a license, and simple assault. A jury found Battista liable on all counts and awarded $175,000 in compensatory damages and $325,000 in punitive damages; the trial justice later remitted $25,000 from each award to address duplicative emotional distress claims. On appeal, Battista challenged the denial of his motion for a new trial, citing errors in jury instructions on negligent infliction of emotional distress, admission of his nolo plea and expert testimony, and the lack of evidence of his financial condition to support punitive damages. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial justice committed no reversible error and that state law does not require plaintiffs to introduce evidence of a defendant's financial means as a prerequisite to punitive damages.

torts & liabilityprocedurecriminal law

In Martellini v. Little Angels Day Care, Inc., neighbors sued the operators of a licensed family day care home in a residential subdivision, claiming that its operation violated a restrictive covenant requiring that the premises be used solely and exclusively for single-family private residence purposes. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, relying on a prior decision and state zoning statutes that expressly permit family day care homes in residential districts. The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed, holding that the covenant's clear language barred the day care business even though zoning law allowed it, because private deed restrictions may impose stricter limits than public regulations.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Dowdell v. Bloomquist, the plaintiff sued her neighbor under Rhode Island's spite fence statute after he planted four tall western arborvitae trees along their property line shortly after disputes arose over a zoning variance. The trial court found the trees functioned as a fence planted primarily out of malice to block the plaintiff's ocean view rather than for legitimate privacy, constituting a private nuisance that depreciated her property value. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the ruling, upholding the trial justice's factual findings on motive and the classification of the trees as a fence under the statute, and it approved the injunctive relief ordering the trees trimmed to six feet. The decision rested on deference to the trial court's credibility assessments and evidence that privacy was a pretext, while rejecting arguments that useful purpose or statutory limits barred equitable remedies.

propertytorts & liability

In State v. Portes, police responded to an anonymous 911 call reporting a disturbance at the defendant's apartment, heard noises suggesting commotion inside after no one answered the door, observed a man attempting to flee from the rear, and then forced entry without a warrant to check for safety concerns. They discovered cocaine and a gun clip in plain view during a cursory search, obtained a warrant, and seized additional cocaine and drug paraphernalia; the defendant was convicted by a jury of two cocaine possession counts after acquittal on related charges. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances based on the officers' observations and the need to ensure no one was in danger, that the items were properly seized, and that sufficient evidence supported constructive possession.

criminal lawprocedure