2010-266-A. Reilly Electrical v. State (show cause)
The plaintiffs seek review by writ of certiorari of a Superior Court judgment affirming the Department of Labor and Training’s cease and desist orders finding that the plaintiffs had performed electrical work without a license. The plaintiffs contend that the Superior Court erred in concluding that hollow pipe installed under a soccer field constituted work on electrical conduit which must be performed by an electrician.
2010-369-M.P. Elizabeth Boyer, et al. v Jeremiah Jeremiah, et al. (full briefing)
This case is before the Court on the granting of defendants’ petitions for writ of certiorari. This case involves a challenge by the plaintiffs to the Truancy Court of Family Court. Defendants assert that the Superior Court trial justice erred in denying their motions to dismiss, which alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and in denying the judicial defendants’ motion to strike, pursuant to Rule 12(f).
2010-77-A. George E. Morabit v. Dennis Hoag (full briefing)
The plaintiff appeals from a Superior Court judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendant in this dispute between neighboring property owners. The plaintiff claims that the trail justice erred in granting the motion, that the trial justice erroneously refused to permit the plaintiff to amend his complaint to conform to the evidence, and that the plaintiff’s expert should have been allowed to testify regarding the value of damages to the plaintiff’s stone wall.
2010-178-A. DePasquale Building and Realty Co. v. R.I. Board of Governors for Higher Education (full briefing)
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment confirming in part and vacating in part an arbitration award between the parties. The plaintiff asserts that the hearing judge erred in not confirming the arbitration award in its entirety. The plaintiff also contends that even if it was appropriate for the hearing judge to have vacated part of the arbitration award, the hearing judge erred in refusing to remand the matter back to the arbitrator to recalculate damages in the case.
2010-215-A. Ronald Fatulli v. Bowen’s Wharf Co. (full briefing)
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment entered for the plaintiff in a dispute over a right of first refusal. The defendant argues that the trial justice erroneously relied on § 34-4-26 in finding that the right of first refusal had expired. According to the defendant, the statute only applies to real estate, and so is inapplicable to the property in question which is “mixed” property, because it includes both a wharf and a business. Also, defendant contends that the statute is merely a notice statute, which would have no bearing on the signatories to the right of first refusal. Finally, defendant argues that the judge erred excluding evidence of defendant’s detrimental reliance upon the agreement.
2010-260-A. David Higgins v. Rhode Island Hospital (show cause)
Plaintiff, an emergency medical technician, was injured by an unruly patient at a hospital after transporting a different patient there in the course of his duties. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial justice erred in ruling that the “firefighter’s rule” applies to the facts of this case and bars his suit against defendants for negligence.
2010-261-A. Edward P. Reynolds, et al. v. Town of Jamestown, et al. (full briefing)
The defendants, Louise Sellon, Lisa Barsumian and Thomas Farrell, and the intervenor, Holly Swett, appeal from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their declaratory judgment complaint concerning a parcel of land in Jamestown. The defendants claim that the trial justice erred in finding that the ways leading to the plaintiffs’ lot were streets, and that the division of land creating the lot was proper.
2010-269-A. Allen Drescher v. Sigurd Johannessen (full briefing)
The plaintiff appeals from a declaratory judgment entered in favor of the defendant in this prescriptive easement case. The plaintiff contends that the trial judge erred in finding that the evidence at trial did not satisfy the elements of a prescriptive easement. The plaintiff also argues that the evidence at trial indicated that the right of way in question had been dedicated and accepted by the public as a public road.
2010-278-A., State of R.I. v. Lead Industries Ass’n (full briefing)
Before the Court are three appeals from three orders of the Superior Court entered on June 28, 2010: (1) the plaintiff state of Rhode Island appeals from an order granting the motion of defendants for reimbursement for fees, costs, and expenses related to the engagement of co-examiners pursuant to Rule 53 of Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) defendant Sherwin-Williams appeals from an order denying its motion for a protective order with respect to the state’s use of an internal company document based upon the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges; and (3) defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for an award of allowable costs under Rule 54(d) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure and title 9, chapter 22 of the Rhode Island General Laws.
2010-329-M.P. Samuel Bird v. Michael J. Murray (show cause)
This case is before the Court on plaintiff’s petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari. The plaintiff asserts that the trial justice erred in granting in part defendant’s motion to compel and ordering the production of certain documents, which plaintiff argues constitute privileged attorney-client communications.
2010-386-A. Roderick A. McGarry v. Marilyn Pielech (full briefing)
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendant town of Cumberland in this age discrimination action. The plaintiff contends that the town failed to present evidence that the interviewing committee had non-discriminatory reasons for hiring other candidates for the open teaching positions. The plaintiff further contends that the trial judge erred in requiring extrinsic evidence to corroborate an inference made under the spoliation of evidence doctrine. The plaintiff also argues that even if such extrinsic evidence was required, there was sufficient extrinsic evidence submitted at trial to demonstrate that the town discriminated against him on the basis of age.
2010-436-A. Joseph F. Alessi v. Bowen Court Condo. Assoc. (full briefing)
This case is before the Court on appeal by the plaintiff from the grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the court erred in finding that the right to require an amendment to the declaration of condominium from the condominium association excluding withdrawable real estate from a condominium, pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws § 34-36.1-2.18(i), expires when the declarant’s right to withdraw the real estate would have otherwise expired.
2010-439-A. Nye v. Brousseau (show cause)
Plaintiff appeals from an order denying several post-trial motions, including one to set aside a transfer of property, related to a quitclaim deed executed by defendants while an earlier appeal in the parties’ boundary line dispute was pending.
2010-145-A. William J. Medeiros v. Bankers Trust Company (show cause)
The plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment entered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs contend that Medeiros should have been provided notice of a stipulation that divested him of title to real property located in North Kingstown. The plaintiffs contend that Medeiros’s due process rights were violated when he did not receive notice of the stipulation.
2010-203-A. Phillip Pelletier v. Aphrodite Laureanno (show cause)
Plaintiffs appeal from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint for injunctive relief and damages. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial justice erred in concluding that a written agreement entered into in 1989 was merely a revocable license to use a portion of the defendant’s property as a driveway, and did not convey an easement to plaintiffs, and further, erred in finding that the testimony of Eileen Pelletier was inherently non-credible, based on the fact that she is a party to the action.
2010-244-A. Ronald Koziol v. Peerless Insurance Co. (show cause)
The defendant appeals from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their declaratory judgment complaint. The defendant claims that the trial justice erred in finding that the language of the defendant’s insurance policy was ambiguous.
2010-264-A. Jessup & Conroy, P.C. v. Mary Seguin (show cause)
The defendant appeals pro se from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in regards to the defendant’s counterclaims. The defendant contends that there were genuine questions of material fact regarding the statute of limitations which would preclude summary judgment. The defendant argues that she was not required to submit affidavits in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion. She also contends that most of her counterclaims did not require the submission of expert evidence.
2010-271-A. Jerry Ims v. Richard Audette (show cause)
Richard Audette appeals from a Superior Court order dismissing his appeal from an order of the Tiverton probate court for lack of jurisdiction, based upon his failure to perfect the appeal pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws § 33-23-1 (2010 Supp.).
2010-353-A. Arthur J. Toegemann v. Louise Rich (show cause)
The plaintiff appeals pro se from the dismissal of his action for abuse of process, negligence, and election fraud. The plaintiff contends that the hearing justice erred in denying his motion to amend and in denying his ability to present additional evidence. He also contends that the statute of limitations did not bar his claims.
2010-374-A. David Henderson v. Nationwide Insurance Co. (full briefing)
The defendant appeals from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this insurance coverage dispute. The defendant claims that exclusions from uninsured motorist coverage found in the Nationwide policy are unambiguous and do not violate public policy.
2010-375-A. Great American E & S Insurance Co. v. End Zone Pub & Grill of Narragansett, Inc. and Michael Gondusky (show cause)
The defendant, Michael Gondusky, appeals from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the plaintiff, on the plaintiff’s complaint for declaratory judgment in this insurance dispute. He contends that the insurer failed to deny coverage based on the assault and battery exclusion within a reasonable amount of time and should be precluded from asserting that the exclusion applies. The defendant also claims that exclusion renders coverage illusory.
2010-385-A. Daniela Turacova, M.D. v. Patricia DeThomas (show cause)
The plaintiff appeals from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendant, Patricia DeThomas. The plaintiff raises several arguments in support of her claim that prejudgment interest should not have been awarded in this case.
2010-428-A. Shannon Reagan, et al. v. City of Newport, et al. (show cause)
Plaintiffs (neighbors) appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing plaintiffs’ quiet title action to a portion of the Washington Street extension in Newport, Rhode Island based on their claim of abandonment.
No. 10-428 William Reagan v. City of Newport (show cause)
No. 10-385 Daniel Turacova MD v. Ronald DeThomas (show cause)
No. 10-376 Janina Klara v. First Bristol Corp. (full briefing)
No. 10-375 Great American E&S Ins. v. End Zone Pub (show cause)
No. 10-374 David Henderson v. Nationwide Ins. (full briefing)
No. 10-353 Arthur Toegemann v. Rich (show cause)
No. 10-315 Sherry Almonte v. Rita S. Kurl, MD (full briefing)
Nos. 10-279, AVCORR Mgmt. v. Central Falls Detention (show cause)
No. 10-271 Jerry Ims v. Richard Audette (show cause)
No. 10-264 Jessup & Conroy, P.C. v. Mary Seguin (show cause)
No. 10-263 Quality Concrete Corp. v. Travelers Ins. (show cause)
The plaintiff appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff contends that the defendant had a duty to defend the plaintiff and was required to pay for separate legal counsel for the plaintiff once it became apparent that the defendant had a conflict of interest. The plaintiff also contends that there was a question of material fact as to whether the defendant had a conflict requiring the plaintiff to hire separate legal counsel.
Nos. 10-251, EP Sch. Comm. v. EP Educ. Assoc. (full briefing)
No. 10-244 Ronald Koziol v. Peerless Ins. Co. (show cause)
No. 10-231 Beverly Haviland v. Brown Univ. (full briefing)
No. 10-230 Greensleeves, Inc. v. Smiley (full briefing)
No. 10-229 Marietta Martone v. Patricia Lombardi (full briefing)
No. 10-207 Rebecca Book v. Education Partnership (full briefing)
(Also related to Nos. 10-157 and 10-208)
No. 10-203 Philip Pelletier v. Aphrodite Laureanno (show cause)
No. 10-176 Narr. Electric v. Frank Smith (show cause)
Plaintiff, Narragansett Electric Company, appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Salvatore Saccoccio, Jr., in his capacity as tax assessor for the city of Cranston, and Robert Strom, in his capacity as finance director for the city of Cranston. The sole issue on appeal is the subject matter jurisdiction of the Superior Court to hear this tax appeal, pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws § 44-5-26.
No. 10-171 Ambrose Mendes v. Alfred Factor (full briefing)
No. 10-162 James Casale v. City of Cranston (show cause)
The defendant appeals from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this declaratory judgment action. This case presents an issue of law concerning the interpretation of § 45-19-1.1 as it relates to uninsured motorist benefits received by an injured firefighter.
No. 10-161 Everett McCain v. Town of N. Prov. (show cause)
The defendant, the town of North Providence, appeals from a grant of declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Everett McCain, and from the denial of defendant’s counterclaim for declaratory relief and damages. The sole issue on appeal is one of statutory interpretation, that is, whether the plaintiff qualifies as a “fire fighter” for purposes of Rhode Island General Laws § 45-19-1 (2009).
No. 10-158 Amanda Rodrigues Ferreira v. Liberty Mut. (show cause)
The plaintiff has appealed from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant in Superior Court, where plaintiff sought a declaration that defendant must provide uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage based upon plaintiff’s contention that she was a family member of the policyholder, her fiancé with whom plaintiff cohabitated at the time of the automobile accident. On appeal, plaintiff claims that the insurance policy is ambiguous and therefore must be strictly interpreted in favor of providing coverage. Plaintiff claims also that she is entitled to coverage based upon an evolving societal perception that the definition of “family” has become both flexible and uncertain.
No. 10-153 Cheryl Ouellette v. HSBC Bank (court conference)
No. 10-146 Anthony Bucci, et al. v. Lehman Bros. (full briefing)
No. 10-145 William Medeiros v. Bankers Trust Co. (show cause)
No. 10-142 Narragansett Elec. Co., et al. v. PUC (full briefing)
(Also related to no. 10-179)
No. 10-125 Portsmouth Water & Fire Dist. v. RIPUC, et al. (full briefing)
Nos. 10-87, Joseph Iozzi v. City of Cranston (full briefing)
No. 10-73 Yi Gu v. RIPTA (full briefing)
No. 10-66 Empire Acquisition Group, LLC v. Atlantic Mtg. Co., Inc. (show cause)
This case arises from the unsuccessful sale of an unimproved parcel of real property in Charlestown, Rhode Island. Plaintiff appeals from the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s complaint for specific performance and on two counts of defendant’s counterclaim, for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. Plaintiff contends that summary judgment was improperly granted in favor of defendant because genuine issues of material fact are in dispute concerning the “reasonableness” of the parties with respect to the failure to close on the scheduled closing date or within a reasonable time thereafter.
No. 10-14 Tijani Olamuyiwa v. Zebra Atlantek, Inc. (show cause)
The plaintiff appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff contends that the release he signed as part of a severance package was void under the Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA). The plaintiff contends that FEPA requires that both he and his attorney attest that the waiver of attorney’s fees in the severance settlement was not compelled as a condition of the settlement. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants failed to give notice of the release to his attorney. Therefore, the plaintiff contends that the release does not bar his discrimination claims.