This case involves a putative class-action lawsuit by plaintiffs Nicholas T. Long and Julianne Ricci against Dell, Inc. and related entities, alleging that Dell improperly collected Rhode Island sales tax on optional service contracts and shipping/handling charges for computers purchased in 2000, in violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and common-law negligence. The defendants sought review via certiorari of the Superior Court's denial of their motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that tax disputes must proceed through administrative channels or the District Court with prepayment requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion, holding that the Superior Court has jurisdiction because the claims are framed as DTPA and negligence actions rather than direct tax refund claims, and remanded the case for trial.
The case concerns a same-sex couple, married in Massachusetts, who sought a divorce in Rhode Island Family Court after meeting the state's residency requirements. The Family Court certified a question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court asking whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction under state law to grant divorces in such cases. The Supreme Court declined to answer the certified question at that time, instead remanding the matter to the Family Court to compile a factual record addressing issues such as where the marriage license was obtained, where the parties were domiciled, whether solemnization occurred, and whether domicile and residence requirements were met. The court also directed the Family Court to determine in the first instance whether an actual case or controversy exists, whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause applies, and whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act is relevant, while requiring the certified question to be reworded for clarity.
In State v. Casas, the defendant was convicted of possessing between one ounce and one kilogram of cocaine and possessing it with intent to deliver after police stopped his truck based on tips from informants linking him to drug storage at a Providence address. The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the conviction and vacated the judgment, ruling that the initial stop lacked adequate reasonable suspicion, the defendant was immediately placed in custody without Miranda warnings, and his consent to search the vehicle was not voluntary due to coercive circumstances including being boxed in by police cars and prolonged detention. The court concluded that these constitutional violations required suppression of the evidence, including cash found on the defendant.
This case concerned an action to quiet title to streets and roadways located on a historic wharf in Newport harbor, including North Commercial Wharf, Scott's Wharf, and a connecting way. Plaintiff Newport Realty, Inc., the record owner of abutting land, argued that the roads were private rights-of-way created for the benefit of lot owners and that it therefore held fee title to them. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed extensive historical evidence of conveyances dating to the eighteenth century, original plats, and decades of public use and municipal actions such as abandonments. The court concluded that the roads had been dedicated to public use through incipient dedication, as the plats and deeds showed no intent to create private ways and the public had accepted the offer by continuous use for over eighty years.
In State v. Davis, the defendant appealed his convictions for assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to rob and breaking and entering a dwelling, arguing that the trial justice erred by denying a motion for new trial on grounds that the jury was not required to unanimously agree whether he acted as a principal or an aider and abettor. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of conviction. The court held that when a jury is properly instructed on alternative theories of criminal participation and unanimously finds guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it need not also unanimously specify the manner of participation. The court distinguished this case from prior decisions involving duplicitous indictments or unclear verdicts, noting that the jury here returned clear guilty verdicts on two distinct counts of the indictment and acquitted on the others.
This case involved a retired Warwick police officer challenging the city's decision to end supplementary payments covering medical expenses for on-the-job injuries after disability retirement, despite prior assurances from city officials. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the state Injured on Duty statute, as well as a promissory estoppel claim based on a 1979 letter and other representations promising continued coverage. The trial court rejected the statutory claims because the city's adopted pension plan controlled and did not require the extra benefits, but it granted individual relief on promissory estoppel after finding detrimental reliance. The Supreme Court reviewed the parties' cross-appeals but confined its analysis to the named plaintiff alone.