| SU-2021-314-MP |
Gary Tassone v. State of Rhode Island
|
The petitioner seeks review of a judgment denying his application for postconviction relief. The petitioner argues that the hearing judge erred in rejecting his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on several alleged failures on the part of trial counsel. |
SU-2023-80-C.A.
|
State v. Robert Furlong
|
This case is before the Court on appeal by the defendant from an order denying his motion to dismiss a criminal indictment, based on double-jeopardy grounds. On appeal, defendant asserts that the Superior Court judge erred because double jeopardy bars his retrial given that his plea of nolo contendere was vacated sua sponte during postconviction proceedings, over defendant’s objection, and after service of five years of the incarcerated portion of his sentence. |
SU-2023-0147-M.P., SU-2023-0100-M.P.
|
Miguel Davis v. State of Rhode Island
|
These consolidated matters are before the Court on the petitions for writ of certiorari of the postconviction relief applicant. Petitioner was convicted on one count of first-degree murder, one count of discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, and one count of carrying a firearm without a license, for which he received consecutive life sentences, and a 10-year term, to be served concurrently with the first life sentence. He asserts that the postconviction relief judge erred in denying his claim of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. He argues that counsel was ineffective because he failed to move for a mistrial after the prosecutor detailed the contents of a purported witness’s testimony in his opening statement and the witness subsequently invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege. Thereafter, trial counsel was barred from making an “Empty Chair” argument in his closing. |
| SU-2023-0214-M.P., SU-2023-0219-M.P. |
GD Richmond Beaver River I, LLC v. Town of Richmond Zoning Board of Review |
In these consolidated petitions for certiorari, intervenor John Peixinho contends that the Superior Court erred in interpreting the town zoning ordinance as requiring only a portion of the proposed solar energy system to be within two miles of a utility substation, instead of the entire solar energy system. The town contends that the Superior Court erred in overturning the zoning board’s decision that the zoning project was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and had a negative impact on the area’s potential inclusion on the National Register of Historic houses. |
| SU-2023-218-CA |
State of Rhode Island v. Daren Post |
The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for breaking and entering of a dwelling house. Before this Court, defendant contends that the circumstantial evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to support his conviction for breaking and entering. Defendant also argues that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a new trial as well as his motion to suppress a statement he made at the Jamestown police station. Additionally, he argues that the sentence imposed was excessive. |
| SU-2023-0237-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Leron Porter |
A jury found the defendant guilty of second-degree murder and related charges. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to exercise a peremptory challenge based on race, in denying his motion for a new trial, and in relying on unreliable and prejudicial evidence. |
SU-2023-0251-A.
SU-2024-246-A. |
Rhode Island Joint Reinsurance Association v. Brenda Ricci |
The defendants in these consolidated cases appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff on the ground that the defendants’ vandalism claim was not covered by their insurance. The defendants contend that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. They also contend that the jury instructions and verdict form were incorrect. In addition, the defendants argue that their motion in limine to prevent submission of evidence on fraud should have been granted and deposition testimony of an unavailable witness pertaining to fraud should have been excluded. |
| SU-2023-0255-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Johnny Xaykosy |
A jury found the defendant guilty of second-degree murder and a related charge. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial justice erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on the issue of whether his actions constituted voluntary manslaughter. |
| SU-2023-0257-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Michael Soares |
The defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree. On appeal, he argues that the trial justice improperly discounted psychiatric evidence, erred in relying on post-offense collateral conduct, and conflated awareness of illegality with criminal responsibility. |
| SU-2023-0288-CA |
State v. Nelson Carreiro |
The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction on two counts of first-degree child molestation. The defendant claims that the trial justice erred in: (1) denying defendant’s motion to suppress statements made in violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights; and (2) denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was not sufficient to establish penetration beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| SU-2023-0299-A. |
Ana Varela v. Daniel Monteiro |
The defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate a judgment of divorce. The defendant claims that the court did not have jurisdiction to enter the final judgment of divorce and the decision pending entry of final judgment on the same day. |
| SU-2023-0308-M.P. |
Terrel Barros v. State of Rhode Island |
The state seeks review by certiorari of a postconviction ruling that vacated the conviction of Terrel Barros based on ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, and due process violations. |
| SU-2023-0334-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Jack Doherty |
A jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and related offenses. On appeal, he argues that the trial justice abused her discretion when she sustained the State’s objections on cross-examination and that the Supreme Court has the authority to fashion a remedy to do justice in this case. |
| SU-2023-0353-A. |
Nicholas DiBiccari v. State of Rhode Island et al. |
The plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of his declaratory judgment action against the state for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. This case involves an application to DEM for an on-site wastewater treatment system, which DEM denied because groundwater was too close to the surface. |
SU-2023-316-M.P.
SU-2023-361-M.P. |
Sally Robinson Squibb v. Coastal Resources Management Council, et al. |
In these consolidated petitions for writ of certiorari, a coastal property owner who sought to build a dock and boat lift/jet ski lift argues that the trial judge erred in reversing the decision of the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) to approve the application. Separately, CRMC also asserts that the judge erred in reversing its decision. |
SU-2024-0009-M.P.
SU-2024-0027-M.P. |
Harrisburg Associates, LLC, et al. v. The City of Providence, et al. |
Petitioners challenge an order granting the Providence City Council’s motion to intervene in a case in which other city entities, including the tax assessor, had negotiated a deal with some petitioners, whose property would receive a beneficial tax rate in exchange for setting aside a certain number of units for affordable housing.. At issue is the timeliness of the motion to intervene and the standing of the tax assessor to approve the deal without approval from the city council. |
SU-2024-10-M.P.
SU-2024-87-M.P. |
Asa S. Davis, III v. Town of Exeter, et al.
Asa S. Davis, III, et al. v. Town of Exeter, et al. |
The petitioner, the town of Exeter, seeks review by certiorari of Superior Court orders denying the town’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata in No. 24-10-M.P. and denying the town’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of res judicata in No. 24-87-M.P. At issue in both cases is the plaintiff’s attempt to get approval for a solar project. The town contends that respondent’s claims in both cases could have been raised in earlier cases. |
SU-2024-0023-A.
SU-2024-0024-A. |
In re E.G.S. |
These cases are before the Court on appeal by the respondent from orders finding him to be delinquent on two counts of first-degree child molestation. Respondent was ordered confined to the Rhode Island Training School for Youth until his 19th birthday, with the sentences suspended, with probation. Additionally, this juvenile was ordered to register as a sex-offender for a period of 15 years. Before this Court, the respondent asserts that the Family Court judge erred: (1) in finding him competent to stand trial; and (2) in ordering him to register as a sex offender for 15 years. |
| SU-2024-44-C.A. |
State v. Jean de la Rosa |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on two counts of first-degree child abuse. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial judge erred: (1) in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, given that the state failed to present evidence consistent with the bill of particulars; and (2) in denying his motion to suppress his statement given to the Johnston police. |
| SU-2024-0057-C.A. |
State v. Francisco Vasquez |
The defendant was convicted on one count of first-degree sexual assault. He was sentenced to 25 years, with 12 years to serve, and 13 years suspended with probation. The defendant contends that the trial judge erred in refusing to strike the testimony of a supervisor at the Rhode Island Forensic Biology and DNA Lab who did not actually perform the DNA tests in issue but supervised an employee who did the tests and was unavailable to testify. |
SU-2024-66-A.
SU-2024-72-A. |
Julie DeOliveira and Maxine DeOliveira v. Greg Trecaso Alias; Greg Trecaso d/b/a GCT Transport; Star Insurance Company; and John Doe, Alias |
In the primary appeal before the Court, the plaintiffs appeal from the denial of their motion for a new trial and other alleged errors at trial in this personal injury. In a cross-appeal, defendant Star Insurance cross-appeals from the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law (No. 24-72-A.). |
| SU-2024-0104-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Isaiah Pinkerton |
A jury found the defendant guilty of murder and related charges. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial justice erred in denying a motion to suppress cellular records and motion to suppress DNA evidence. |
| SU-2024-114-A. |
Guy Desantis v. Tracy Loignon (f/k/a Tracy Desantis) |
The defendant appeals from an order that was entered in this post-final-judgment dispute over enforcement of a marital settlement agreement, which addressed disposition of the marital domicile. The judge ordered the property sold forthwith and determined how the proceeds would be distributed, and the parties were ordered to try to reach a mutual agreement regarding attorney’s fees for plaintiff. |
| SU-2024-127-A. |
PACE Organization of Rhode Island v. Sarah Frew, in her capacity as Tax Assessor for the City of East Providence |
The plaintiff, PACE Organization of Rhode Island, appeals from a Superior Court summary judgment in favor of defendant, the tax assessor for East Providence. PACE-RI contends that it is entitled to an exemption from property taxes in accordance with G.L. 1956 § 44-3-3(a)(12), because its property is held for the aid or support of the aged poor. |
| SU-2024-134-M.P. |
Robert Schmidt and Mary Schmidt v. R.I. Division of Taxation |
The Rhode Island Department of Revenue Division of Taxation (the Division), seeks review of a decision of the District Court in favor of respondents, in this administrative appeal. The case before the Court turns on interpretation of language in § 44-30-87(a). Specifically, the issue involves the method for calculating the three-year period that limits the amount of tax refund. The trial judge decided that § 44-30-87(a) was ambiguous and that the Division’s interpretation was erroneous. |
| SU-2024-0143-M.P. |
Thomas and Cynthia Sculco v. Town of Hopkinton Zoning Board of Review sitting as the Board of Appeal, et al. |
The petitioner, RI-95, LLC, filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari seeking review of a Superior Court judgment reversing the Hopkinton Zoning Board of Review’s (zoning board) approval of RI-95’s master plan application for a solar facility. RI-95 contends that the Superior Court erred in interpreting the town zoning ordinance as not permitting a solar facility on its property (according to the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of its application in 2020). RI-95 also contends that the Superior Court erred in determining that it could not rely upon equitable estoppel for its application. |
| SU-2024-144-A. |
Carol Williams, et al. v. Avco Corporation |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the plaintiffs from summary judgement in favor of defendant. The underlying litigation arose out of a fatal plane crash in Mississippi in which three people were killed. Plaintiffs, family members of people killed in the plane crash, filed a products liability suit against Avco all based on their claim that Avco supplied the small aircraft with a defective engine part. On appeal, plaintiffs assert that the trial judge erred: (1) in limiting the scope of discovery and denying plaintiffs’ motions to compel; (2) in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment; and (3) in violating plaintiffs’ right to justice under Article 1, § 5 of the Rhode Island Constitution. |
| SU-2024-0146-C.A. |
State v. Isaiah Ortiz |
The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction on one count of carrying a firearm without a license. He challenges his conviction on Second Amendment grounds, asserting that the state’s gun permitting scheme, which prohibits 18–20-year-old adults from carrying concealed firearms, violates the U.S. Constitution. |
| SU- 2024-153-A., 2024-154-A., 2024-155-A., 2024-156-A., 2024-157-A., 2024-158-A., 2024-159-A., 2024-160-A., 2024-161-A., 2024-162-A., 2024-167-A., 2024-168-A., 2024-169-A., 2024-170-A., 2024-171-A., 2024-172-A., 2024-173-A., 2024-174-A., 2024-175-A., 2024-176-A., 2024-177-A., 2024-247-A., 2024-248-A., 2024-317-A. |
New England Institute of Technology v. Salvatore Saccccio, in his capacity as Tax Assessor, Town of West Warwick |
The defendant, the Tax Assessor for the town of West Warwick, appeals from Superior Court judgments in favor of plaintiff, New England Institute of Technology, finding plaintiff’s property to be exempt from taxation. The plaintiff filed cross-appeals in most of these cases. The cases involve tax appeals filed over the course of several years, in which plaintiff alleged, first, that its property is exempt from taxation, and second, that the assessments were excessive. |
| SU-2024-188-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Arturo Alonzo Mora |
The state appeals from an order that granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the criminal information filed against him. The state contends the trial judge erred in dismissing the information because the defendant did not follow the proper procedure to request a speedy trial pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, § 13-13-2. |
| SU-2024-0219-A. |
Yohaira Galindez v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority |
The plaintiff appeals from a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority. Plaintiff argues that the trial judge erred: (1) with several evidentiary rulings including allowing the use of unauthenticated medical records that contained double hearsay; failing to make an adequate ruling on spoliation of evidence; improperly allowing the use of a prior consistent statement for impeachment purposes; violating Rhode Island Rules of Evidence 403 and 608; allowing plaintiff’s testimony to be impeached with medical records; and allowing the use of misattributed medical records that were plaintiff’s twin sister’s records; (2) in allowing defendant to amend its answer at the eleventh hour to include the affirmative defense of sudden emergency; (3) in dismissing a juror; (4) in her response to a jury question; (5) in the jury instruction regarding duty of care; and (6) in denying plaintiff’s motion for new trial. |
| SU-2024-0223-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Aaron Lewis |
The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for two counts of first-degree sexual assault. The defendant contends that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to dismiss, as the uncontroverted evidence at trial indicated that the complainant was not incapacitated. The defendant also contends that the trial judge erred in permitting a nurse’s expert opinion on the complaining witness’s injuries being consistent with forced penetration. The defendant further contends that the trial judge erred in permitting the nurse to provide hearsay testimony concerning the sexual assault. |
| SU-2024-228-A. |
John H. Williams and Warwick Cove Marina Inc. v. Elizabeth McDonough Noonan and Adler, Pollack and Sheehan P.C. |
In this legal malpractice case, the plaintiffs appeal from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, based on the statute of limitations. On appeal, plaintiffs assert that the trial judge erred because there were disputed issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment as to when the statute of limitations began to run. Plaintiffs also assert error in the trial judge’s conclusion that Mr. Williams did not have standing individually to pursue his claims and that plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim required an affidavit or testimony of an expert as to the standard of care. |
SU-2024-236-A
|
In re R.S. |
The respondent appeals from a decree terminating her parental rights to her son. She argues that the Family Court erred: (1) in finding her unfit to parent her son, (2) in finding that the Department of Children, Youth, and their Families had made reasonable efforts to correct the situation that led to the child’s removal from her care in the first instance, (3) in finding that it was in the child’s best interests to terminate her parental rights, and (4) in violating her procedural due process rights. |
| SU-2024-238-A. |
Frederick Bissinger, et al. v. Morash Family Limited Partnership, et al. |
The defendants appeal from the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in this declaratory judgment action arising out of a failed real estate transaction. At issue is the interpretation of a purchase and sale agreement for the sale of approximately nine acres of land in Little Compton to the defendants. |
SU-2024-244-M.P.
SU-2024-245-M.P. |
David M. Roth et al. v. State of Rhode Island et al.
Stilts, LLC, a Rhode Island Limited Liability Company v. State of Rhode Island et al. |
These consolidated cases involve takings claims and public access to the shoreline. The State of Rhode Island and the Coastal Resources Management Council are seeking review of the Superior Court’s denial of the state’s motions for summary judgment. The state contends that the plaintiffs cannot succeed on their takings claims because the recently enacted shoreline access act, General Laws 1956 § 46-23-26, is consistent with background principles of state law granting the public the right to access the shore. The state contends that the shoreline act protects rights set forth in Article I, sections 16 and 17 of the Rhode Island Constitution. The state asserts that the General Assembly had the authority to protect shoreline access rights in light of 1986 amendments to the Rhode Island Constitution. |
| SU-2024-0253-M.P. |
Cynthia A. Roberge v. Travelers Property & Casualty Company of America |
This case is before the Court pursuant to certified questions of law from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The First Circuit asked this Court whether an employee operating her own personal vehicle while in the scope of her employment is considered a named insured under the employer’s auto insurance policy, despite contrary language in the policy and in light of Martinelli v. Travelers Ins. Co., 687 A.2d 443 (R.I. 1996). The First Circuit also asked this Court whether there is a violation of § 27-7-2.1 when an employer’s auto insurance provides liability coverage to employees in the scope of their employment, but does not provide uninsured motorist/underinsured motorist coverage based upon the auto involved. |
| SU-2024-258-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Austin Davis |
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and commitment for first-degree sexual assault following a jury-waived trial. He contends that the judge committed reversible error in concluding there was sufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that there was penetration, and that defendant knew or should have known the complaining witness was too impaired to give consent. Also defendant argues that the judge committed reversible error in concluding that spoliation of evidence did not occur. |
| SU-2024-263-A. |
Estate of Louis Campagnone by and through its Administrator, Dana Martinelli v. The State of Rhode Island |
The plaintiff appeals from summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant in this slip and fall case involving the Recreational Use Statute, G.L. § 32-6-1, et seq. Before this Court, plaintiff asserts that the trial judge erred because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the state willfully failed to warn against a dangerous condition after discovering a user’s peril that implicate the exception to the application of the statute. |
SU-2024-0264-C.A.
|
State of Rhode Island v. Miguel Lacourt |
A jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree and related offenses. On appeal, he argues that the trial justice erred in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter when there was evidence of adequate provocation and acting in the heat of passion. |
| SU-2024-0265-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Adauris Garcia |
A jury found the defendant guilty of second-degree murder and related charges. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial justice erred in excluding certain testimony and in denying a motion for a new trial. |
| SU-2024-0280-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Trequan Baker |
A jury found the defendant guilty of second-degree murder and related charges. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial justice erred in declining to order a mistrial after the prosecutor impermissibly asked the jury to use the defendant’s post-arrest invocation of his right to remain silent against him. |
| SU-2024-0281-A. |
Linda Perotti v. Albert Scatto |
The Scituate Probate Court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether petitioner and the decedent were common law spouses. The Superior Court reversed that decision, ruling that the Probate Court did have jurisdiction to decide that question. Respondent appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the judge erred because the enabling legislation found at Rhode Island General Laws 1956 § 8-9-9 does not grant such jurisdiction to Probate Courts. |
| SU-2024-287-A. |
The Providence Community Health Centers, Inc. v. Neal Dupuis, in his capacity as Tax Assessor for the City of Warwick |
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered in favor of the city of Warwick in this case involving the interpretation of two tax exemption sections. The plaintiff contends that the Superior Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the city when it concluded that the plaintiff was not exempt from property taxes under either G.L. 1956 § 44-3-3(a)(12) or § 44-3-3(a)(70). The plaintiff contends that the tax exemption under § 44-3-3(a)(70) applies to real property owned by the plaintiff anywhere in Rhode Island and is not limited to its Providence real property. The plaintiff also contends that its Warwick property qualifies for the tax exemption under § 44-3-3(a)(12), because it serves the poor. The plaintiff argues that this exemption does not require a nonprofit organization to serve the poor exclusively in order for the exemption to apply. |
| SU-2024-288-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Brian Brownell |
Defendant appeals from a conviction on two counts of first-degree sexual assault. He argues that errors were made in denying his motion to sever the trial on separate counts, admitting evidence of prior bad acts pursuant to Rule 404(b), admitting impeachment evidence pursuant to Rule 609, disallowing defendant from commenting during closing statement on a potential witness who did not testify pursuant to the empty chair doctrine, denying his motion for new trial, and instructing the jury on why defendant was in custody. |
| SU-2024-0316-M.P. |
Highlander Charter School v. East Providence School District and Cranston School District and Rhode Island Council on Elementary and Secondary Education |
The petitioners, East Providence School District and Cranston School District, filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari seeking review of a Superior Court order reversing the Rhode Island Council on Elementary and Secondary Education (council). The council had affirmed the decision of the Rhode Island Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education (commissioner) that the petitioners were not statutorily required to reimburse respondent Highlander Charter School (Highlander) for pre-kindergarten (pre-k) students attending Highlander from those school districts. The petitioners contend that the Superior Court failed to give deference to the commissioner’s interpretation of G.L. 1956 § 16-7.2-5(d). The petitioners further assert that the commissioner reasonably determined that the statutory phrase “district’s students” was ambiguous and that it only required school districts to reimburse students who were legally required to attend public school. They indicate that pre-k students are not required by law to attend public school. |
| SU-2024-323-C.A. |
State v. Bradley Peterson |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the defendant, from a judgment of probation violation, for which nine years of a previously suspended sentence was executed. Defendant argues that the violation hearing judge erred because the sentence imposed for the violation was excessive. |
| SU-2024-326-A. |
Jolene Senna v. Joanna L’Heureux |
The plaintiff appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of the defendants, the finance director of the city of Pawtucket and the Pawtucket Water Supply Board. The plaintiff contends that the trial judge erred in deciding that the city was shielded from liability under the public duty doctrine. The distribution of water is not a governmental function covered by the public duty doctrine, the plaintiff argues, and the judge should have upheld the jury verdict finding that the Pawtucket Water Supply Board was negligent in maintaining a metal curb box which was part of the water distribution system. |
| SU-2024-0329-A. |
In re Estate of Harry Fairhurst |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the plaintiffs, co-executors of the Estate of Harry Fairhurst, from a final judgment of the Superior Court, affirming an order of the Cumberland Probate Court that voided the sale of the testator’s real property and remanded the case to the probate court for further proceedings. The probate court had further directed that, if either co-executor wished to exercise his or her option to purchase the property, they needed to file a petition with notice to the remaining devisees, in compliance with General Laws § 33-19-9. Plaintiffs assert that the Superior Court judge overlooked or misconceived material evidence and misconstrued the specific terms of the decedent’s will, which only required them to notify his children by mail of their option to purchase, and did not require that this notice include the price or other conditions of the sale. |
| SU-2024-0331-A. |
El Bebe Day Care Center, Inc., et al. v. Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, through its chair Patricia DiCenso, in her official capacity only |
Plaintiffs appeal from the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of their complaint for civil rights discrimination. They alleged that the defendants discriminated against them in the administration of the Child and Adult Care Food Program. The Superior Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata. |
| SU-2024-0340-M.P. |
Pioneer Investments LLC v. Nicole McKiernan |
The defendant seeks review of an order granting the motion to dismiss her appeal in this landlord-tenant case. She argues that the hearing judge erred in dismissing her appeal for failure to pay her rent during the pendency of the appeal. The crux of the matter is how to calculate the starting date, and thus the amount, of the rent owed during the appeal. |
| SU-2024-344-A. |
Reagan Marine Construction, LLC v. Victor Costa et al. |
Defendants appeal from a default judgment in favor of plaintiff Reagan Marine Construction. Defendants assert the trial judge erred in entering defaults and a default judgment, arguing that service of the motion for default judgment, application for default judgment, motion for attorney’s fees, and the judgment were defective as to Costa. |
| SU-2024-0350-A. |
Jay Patel v. John Mancini, et al. |
The plaintiff appeals pro se from the dismissal of his action for breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment against the defendants. This case arose after the plaintiff was defaulted, and had a default judgment entered against him, in an earlier case involving a purchase and sale agreement. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the Superior Court erred in dismissing his action on the grounds of res judicata. He also asserts that the trial judge could not dismiss the matter on alternate grounds without resorting to factfinding. |
| SU-2024-0355-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Jayquan Garlington |
A jury found the defendant guilty of murder and conspiracy. On appeal, he argues that the trial justice erred in admitting his rap lyrics and in allowing the prosecutor to bolster witnesses while precluding defense counsel from challenging certain statements. |
| SU-2024-360-A. |
Shiva LLC, Airport Hospitality LLC, Jay Patel v. LandingPartners, LLC, et al. |
The plaintiff appeals pro se from a final judgment dismissing his action against the defendants, LandingPartners, LLC, 1850 Post Road Owner, LLC, and Centreville Bank. The plaintiff contends that the Superior Court erred in dismissing his action on the grounds of res judicata because the elements of res judicata were not demonstrated. He also asserts that the judge would have needed to resort to impermissible fact finding in order to dismiss his first amended complaint. |
| SU-2024-362-CA |
State v. Matthew Jones |
The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial. The defendant was found guilty of driving so as to endanger, death resulting, stemming from a fatal car accident that occurred in Middletown, Rhode Island. |
| SU-2024-0363-A. |
Maria Abregu v. Yanira Gonzalez |
This case concerns a dispute over home renovations between two pro se litigants. The plaintiff appeals from a ruling in favor of the defendant, and now argues that the Superior Court erred in failing to find that the defendant breached an agreement with the plaintiff to perform additional work at the plaintiff’s house. |
| SU-2024-0371-A. |
SWAP Property Management and Potters Avenue Area Revitalization, LP v. Henrietta Shepard |
The defendant appeals pro se from a judgment in favor of the defendants for possession and past due rent and costs, in this landlord-tenant eviction matter. On appeal, defendant asserts that she attempted to pay the rent that was due and owing, and thus the Superior Court trial judge erred in ruling against her. |
SU-2024-371-A.
SU-2024-0382-A. |
Joan Strassman v. Karen Howe |
In these consolidated appeals, plaintiff challenges the denial of her motion to charge the garnishee with liability to satisfy an underlying judgment based on the garnishee’s failure to timely submit an affidavit required by § 10-17-4. IGT Global Solutions Corporation filed a conditional and protective cross-appeal and argued that if § 10-17-15 is construed in plaintiff’s favor it is unconstitutional. |
| SU-2024-372-CA |
State of Rhode Island v. Richard Stanley |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on one count of driving to endanger, physical injury resulting and one count of driving under the influence. Before this Court, defendant argues that the trial judge erred in admitting testimony and evidence regarding the horizontal gaze nystagmus test that was performed on him as part of a field sobriety test. |
| SU-2024-377-A. |
Patrick M. Hogan, Jr. v. Amanda H. Wong |
The plaintiff appeals from a Family Court order affirming the general magistrate’s award of marital assets to the defendant, in this divorce action. The plaintiff challenges the valuation of certain marital assets as of the date of separation rather than the date of divorce. The plaintiff also contends it was error not to consider unvested stock options and unvested restricted stock units in distributing the marital estate. The plaintiff further asserts that the Family Court erred in not considering the defendant’s transfer of $200,000 from her brokerage account to her own checking account. |
| SU-2024-0384-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Juan Rivera |
A jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and related offenses. On appeal, he argues that the trial justice erred in allowing in evidence of certain statements under the “good faith” exception and in finding that defense counsel opened up the door to witness testimony. The defendant also contends that the testimony of a detective was inadequate to authenticate a video. |
| SU-2024-0387-M.P. |
Luther C. Parente and Eric L. Stewart v. Nelson Lefebvre, in his official capacity as Warden of the Department of Corrections, et al. |
This case presents the Court with a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit as follows: Whether discrimination claims under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act of 1990, R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-112-1 to 2, are “actions of tort” under the State Tort Claims Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-31-1(a)? |
| SU-2024-396-A. |
American Express National Bank v. Anna Perretta |
The defendant appeals from a grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff, American Express, on its claim for breach of contract. Before this court, defendant argues that the trial justice erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant also argues that the trial justice’s consideration of an affidavit in support of plaintiff’s motion—which was emailed to the court on the morning of the hearing—constituted a denial of due process of the law. |
| SU-2025-10-C.A. |
State v. Thomas Parsons |
The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for carrying a pistol without a license. He contends that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the pistol. He asserts that the police seized the duffel bag containing the pistol when it ordered staff at the fitness center where the duffel bag was located to take custody of the bag. The defendant argues that the police needed a search warrant to seize the bag. The defendant also contends that the evidence at trial did not establish that he knowingly possessed the gun. |
| SU-2025-16-M.P. |
Peter O’Rourke v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company |
The plaintiff seeks review on certiorari of a Superior Court order granting the defendant’s motion to discharge the jury. The defendant is Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. The issue before the Court is whether there remained any material questions of fact in the case at the time of the jury’s discharge. |
| SU-2025-0022-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. William Gilbert |
A jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree sexual assault. On appeal, he argues that the trial justice erred in admitting out of court statements for the truth of the matter asserted. |
| SU-2025-0026-A. |
Robert D. Hodgson v. Alison E. Richards, Individually and as Co-Trustee of the Jacqueline D. Hodgson Revocable Trust UTD June 15, 2010, et al. |
The plaintiff appeals from an order granting the motion of the defendants, individually and as co-trustees of the Jacqueline D. Hodgson Revocable Trust UTD June 15, 2010, and the trust, to set aside defaults entered against them. Before this Court, plaintiff asserts that the trial judge abused his discretion in vacating the defaults.
|
| SU-2025-30-A & SU-2025-31-A |
State et al. v. Pioneer Investments, LLC, et al. |
These appeals arise out of a complaint filed by the state of Rhode Island and the interim director of the Rhode Island Department of Health alleging a public nuisance and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act against the defendants. In particular, the state alleged that the defendant, the owner of many residential rental units, had failed to comply with numerous consumer and residential protection laws, including those involving lead hazard abatement. |
| SU-2025-35-A & SU-2025-36-A |
City of Newport v. 6365 Fourth Avenue Corp |
In these two cases, defendant, who is the owner of a housing unit in Newport has appealed after being found guilty in Superior Court of violating several city ordinances stemming from a short-term rental. Defendant filed two motions to dismiss and vacate the municipal court judgments, which were denied. First, defendant moved to dismiss on grounds that the ordinances it allegedly violated were preempted by General Laws 1956 § 42-63.1-14. Second, defendant argued that the ordinances were unconstitutionally retroactive and thus violated defendant’s due process rights. |
| SU-2025-0039-A, SU-2025-0040-A |
Harriet Kniffer v. Rhode Island Airport Corp. |
The plaintiffs appeal from a judgment assessing just compensation for avigation easements over the plaintiffs’ properties condemned by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) on behalf of the Rhode Island Airport Corporation. The plaintiffs also appeal from a declaratory judgment declaring that the condemnations were valid and that RIDOT had the authority to make the condemnations. The plaintiffs argue that RIDOT did not have the authority to condemn the avigation easements. They also argue that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that the easements began at 45 to 125 feet above the ground level of their properties. The plaintiffs further contend that they were entitled to enhanced damages from the condemnations. |
| SU-2025-43-A & SU-2025-44-A |
East Providence Fire Fighters v. City of East Providence Local 850, IAFF, AFLCIO |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the respondent, the City of East Providence, and the cross-appeal of the petitioner, the East Providence Fire Fighters Local 850, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, from the grant of the union’s petition to vacate an arbitration award. |
| SU-2025-45-A. |
Galbin Fernandez, in his capacity as the Administrator of the Estate of Eva Pena v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority
|
This case is before the Court on appeal by the plaintiff, in his capacity as the administrator of the estate of Eva Pena, from a verdict after jury trial in favor of the defendant, the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA). Before this Court, plaintiff makes one claim: that the trial judge erred in allowing into evidence a RIPTA official’s report and testimony about now deceased plaintiff Eva Pena’s statements, made through an unidentified translator. |
| SU-2025-46-A. |
Frank Diaz et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing et al. |
The plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment for defendants, in this case wherein plaintiffs alleged wrongful foreclosure for failure to strictly comply with the notice requirements in paragraph 22 of the mortgage contract. |
| SU-2025-0050-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Quelon Page |
A jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and related offenses. On appeal, he argues that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a new trial. Specifically, the defendant claims that the trial justice overlooked, misconceived, and overestimated material evidence. |
| SU-2025-0054-A. |
Leonard LaPadula III v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc. |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the pro se plaintiff from an order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, plaintiff raises eleven issues, all centered on the trial judge’s denial of plaintiff’s request to attend a hearing remotely by WebEx. |
| SU-2025-55-A. |
David Hurd, Trustee of the Amended and Restated Deavod C. Hurd Trust Dated February 3, 1999 v. H&H Real Estate, LLC d/b/a Hogan Associates, and Kevin Campbell |
Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment for defendants in a claim of negligence and breach of contract. The issue on appeal is whether the trial judgment erred in holding that expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care for a real estate agent who procured a tenant. |
| SU-2025-60-A. |
Andrea Lynch v. Jason Gardner et al. |
In this slip-and-fall action, plaintiff asserts that the trial judge erred in not allowing the amended complaint to relate back to the time of the filing of the initial complaint. |
| SU-2025-068-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. James Ballou |
A jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree and second-degree child molestation sexual assault. On appeal, he argues that the trial justice violated the Confrontation Clause by excluding impeachment evidence while permitting cross-examination of the co-complainant. The defendant also contends that admission of testimony regarding conduct decades earlier was erroneous. The cumulative effect of these errors, the defendant claims, deprived him of a fair trial. |
| SU-2025-0082-A |
Cassandra Constantino v. Zsolt Orban |
The defendant appeals pro se from the decision pending entry of final judgment in this divorce action. The defendant contends that the Family Court misinterpreted the evidence. He also contends that the Family Court erred in treating certain foreign properties held by the plaintiff as non-marital property and erred in the division of other assets. |
| SU-2025-0083-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Noel Ignacio Moronta |
A jury found the defendant guilty of failing to report a death with the intention of concealing a crime, felony drug conspiracy, and multiple drug possession charges. On appeal, he argues that police officers entered the third-floor apartment without a warrant or exigent circumstances and so the fruits of the illegal search must be suppressed. |
| SU-2025-86-A |
Richelle Cosmo v. Tina O’Neill et al. |
This is a declaratory judgment action in which the plaintiff sought recovery of funds in the possession of the defendant. Defendant appeals from the order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Before this Court, defendant argues that there existed genuine issues of material fact that should have prevented summary judgment. Defendant also contends that the judge misapplied the standard for unjust enrichment and ERISA. |
| SU-2025-0097-C.A. |
State v. Bradley Peterson |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the defendant from the execution of nine years, nine months of a suspended sentence, in this probation violation matter, arising out of criminal case N1-1993-0240A. Defendant has a separate appeal, No. 24-323-C.A., from a judgment of probation violation arising from the same underlying criminal matter. |
| SU-2025-0098-A |
Arturo Batac v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage |
The plaintiff appeals pro se from the entry of summary judgment concerning his default on his mortgage. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant committed unfair and deceptive business practices in putting his loan in delinquency status and threatening foreclosure. The plaintiff contends that he never missed a monthly mortgage payment and that the defendant has acted illegally to ruin his credit rating. |
| SU-2025-103-CA |
State of Rhode Island v. James Duffy, Jr. |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction after jury trial on one count of second-degree child molestation and four counts of simple assault. On appeal before this Court, defendant claims that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for new trial because the evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction of second-degree child molestation. |
| SU-2025-0109-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Robert Komhlan |
A jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and related offenses. On appeal, he argues that the trial justice erred in refusing to pass the case following unsworn testimony of a juror concerning a fact pertinent to an issue before the jury where the court neither conducted individual voir dire nor issued a curative instruction. |
| SU-2025-118-A. |
Rachel Mulligan et al. v. Devin Duprey et al. |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the pro se defendants, from the entry of an order granting the motion of the plaintiff, individually and as PPA for her daughter, for a preliminary injunction. Defendants argue that the hearing judge erred: (1) in finding harassment based on a single incident, rather than a course of conduct, pursuant to General Laws 1956 11-59-1(2); (2) in overlooking a filing delay that diminished immediacy; (3) in failing to balance the equities; (4) in failing to maintain the status quo; (5) and in failing to issue separate verdicts for plaintiffs and defendants. |
| SU-2025-120-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Kevin Frias |
A jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree and second-degree child molestation sexual assault. On appeal, he argues that the trial justice erred by admitting unfairly prejudicial internet search terms and in denying a motion for a new trial. |
| SU-2025-121-A. |
Michele Wilson v. Craig Wilson |
The defendant appeals from a Family Court order affirming the general magistrate’s order awarding the plaintiff half of the defendant’s pension pursuant to the property settlement agreement in this divorce action. The defendant contends that the plaintiff’s motion to reopen the divorce was not timely under the statute of limitations. The defendant also contends that the Family Court erred in ordering specific performance of the property settlement agreement. The defendant asserts that the property settlement agreement does not provide for a second qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to be entered. The defendant further argues that the Family Court erroneously reformed the property settlement agreement in ordering a second QDRO to enter. |
| SU-2025-122-A. |
Brenda Howard v. Nelson Rodrigues, et al. |
In this dog-bite case, the plaintiff appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of two of the defendants. |
| SU-2025-0129-C.A. |
State v. Brandon Smith |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the defendant, from a judgment of conviction following a bench trial held in Superior Court. The defendant was charged with one count of failing to register as a sex offender. The issue before the Court concerns the interpretation of G.L. 1956 § 11 37.1 10(a), which governs the penalties for a sex offender’s failure to register or verify certain information. |
| SU-2025-0130-A |
LandingPartners, LLC v. Shiva, LLC |
Defendant Jay Patel appeals pro se from an order granting the plaintiff and defendant Centreville Bank’s motion to quash a subpoena issued to depose the commissioner in this case and granting LandingPartners’ motion for a protective order to prevent post-dismissal discovery. Patel contends that the Superior Court abused its discretion in denying post-judgment discovery. He also contends that the hearing judge erred in finding that there was defective service of the subpoena. |
| SU-2025-132-A |
Vanessa Carlton et al. v. Artak Avagyan et al. |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the defendants from an order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs in this action for private nuisance and injunctive relief. On appeal, defendants challenge the hearing justice’s findings as to three of the preliminary injunction factors. They also raise issues concerning the language of the preliminary injunction order as well as the lack of consideration of their need for security. |
| SU-2025-0133-C.A. |
State v. Damien Melendez |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on one count of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime of violence. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to suppress the firearm, after she found that the search of defendant’s person was unconstitutional, based on her application of the attenuation and the inevitable discovery doctrines. |
| SU-2025-0135-A. |
Arinola Olawuyi, et al. v. Ferland Property Management |
The pro se plaintiff appeals from summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant in this eviction action. On appeal, plaintiff asserts that the Superior Court judge erred because (1) her right to privacy was violated and (2) she was illegally evicted. |
| SU-2025-145-A. |
Gina Iaciofano v. Rhody Residential, LLC, et al. |
Defendants appeal from a decision to dismiss this action without prejudice to allow for post-arbitration proceedings in Florida Circuit Court in this dispute over LLCs owned by the Iaciofano family. |
| SU-2025-0147-A. |
Tiffany Cozzolino v. Frank Samuelson, Jr., et al. |
Frank H. Samuelson, Jr. v. Tiffany Cozzolino, et al. Before this Court is the appellant’s appeal from an order granting the appellee’s motion for summary judgment in this action concerning appellant’s exercise of the right of redemption with respect to property that was sold for the nonpayment of taxes. In the Superior Court, appellee filed an action seeking to exercise the right of redemption that she held while appellant filed a cross action purportedly seeking to foreclose the right of redemption. The two actions were consolidated at the Superior Court level and summary judgment entered in favor of appellee in both actions. On appeal, appellant argues that there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment. |
| SU-2025-156-A. |
In re DDH |
The petitioner, as the guardian on behalf of DDH, appeals from a Family Court order dismissing her miscellaneous petition for custody and special findings on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The petitioner contends that the Family Court erred in concluding that it no longer had jurisdiction over the custody petition once DDH turned 18 years old. The petitioner contends that nothing in the Family Court Act indicates that jurisdiction will be divested for a minor who subsequently turns 18 after his petition was filed. The petitioner also argues that the Family Court had the inherent authority to enter an order nunc pro tunc to the date of the filing of the petition when DDH was a minor. |
| SU-2025-158-A |
Bryan Edward Menge v. Geico General Insurance Company et al. |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the pro se plaintiff from summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Before this Court, plaintiff asserts that the trial judge erred in denying his motions for severance and to stay discovery on certain counts. He further asserts that the trial judge erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. |
| SU-2025-0174-A |
Walter Moore v. RI Office of the Postsecondary Commissioner |
The plaintiff appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff contends that he was entitled to certain non-salary benefits when he was transferred to a classified position in the Office of Internal Audit. The plaintiff contends that the hearing judge erred in ruling that certain benefits were not available to classified employees. |
| SU-2025-175-A |
Geico General Insurance Co. v. Fama Diop et al. |
The defendant appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this declaratory judgment action concerning the amount of coverage available under the subject automobile insurance policy. Defendant essentially argues that, because she is proceeding under the wrongful death statute, her action for loss of consortium should be construed as an independent action for bodily injury, so as to entitle her to recover the “each occurrence” limit under the policy. |
| SU-2025-176-A. |
John A. Dorsey, Esq. as Permanent Receiver for the Real Estate Commonly Known as 36 Kinnicutt Avenue and located at Plat 20, Lot 330 v. One Parcel of Real Estate Commonly Known as 36 Kinnicutt Avenue and Located at Plat 20, Lot 330, et al. |
The respondent appeals from an order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent the sale of real property. Before this Court, respondent asserts that the Superior Court trial judge erred in denying his motion. |
| SU-2025-0178-C.A. |
State v. James J. Powers |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the pro se defendant from an order granting in part and denying in part his motion to correct a judgment of conviction. Before this Court, defendant asserts that the hearing judge erred in declining to amend the judgment entered in 1982 to specify that he was convicted on one count of felony murder, rather than just “murder.” |
| SU-2025-0179-C.A. |
State of Rhode Island v. Bosco Tukamuhabwa |
A jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree and violation of a no contact order. On appeal, he argues that there was no exigency justifying the warrantless search is historical cell site location and therefore the trial justice erred in admitting the data. |
| SU-2025-185-A & SU-2025-186-A. |
Raymond Desrochers et al. v. Luigi Micheli, III |
This is an adverse possession case that was brought as a declaratory judgment action in Superior Court. The parties appeal from a judgment entered in part for plaintiffs and in part for defendant. Before this Court, the plaintiffs claim that the trial justice’s decision, with regard to the portion of the disputed tract that was held not to be theirs by adverse possession, was based on an incomplete understanding of the case law. The defendant argues on cross-appeal that the portion of the judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs should be reversed because they failed to prove the element of hostility. |
| SU-2025-0192-A |
Kelly K. Fitzgerald v. James W.A. Jackson |
The defendant appeals pro se from a Family Court order denying his motion to recuse the Family Court justice in this child custody and child support action. The defendant contends that his motion to recuse should have been granted because he demonstrated bias on the part of the Family Court justice. He points to delays in hearing motions, the failure to live stream proceedings, excluding certain witness testimony, and the interim placement of the children with the plaintiff as evidence of bias. |
| SU-2025-0202-A |
Rahim Caldwell v. George Pearson |
The plaintiff appeals pro se from an order dismissing his second amended complaint and denying his motion to amend. The plaintiff asserts that he was falsely accused by the defendants of disrupting the library at Rhode Island College. He contends that he was framed by the defendants and that his constitutional rights were violated. |
| SU-2025-0214-C.A. |
State v. Pedro Reyes |
The defendant appeals pro se from the denial of his motion to reduce his life sentence for second degree murder under Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. The defendant contends that the hearing judge erred in denying his motion to reduce because his sentence was demonstrably harsher than those in comparable cases and it was not proportionate to his offense. The defendant also contends that his sentence was unconstitutional and his legal counsel for the Rule 35 motion was ineffective. He further asserts that the hearing judge erred in denying his motion to reconsider. |
| SU-2025-223-A. |
Myles Standish Associates, LP, et al. v. City of Providence, et al. |
This case challenges the constitutionality of legislation that essentially overrode the right of remonstrance provided to neighboring property owners pursuant to General Laws 1956 § 3-7-19. That right of remonstrance essentially would have prevented the Providence Board of Licenses from hearing the application and issuing a liquor license to the applicant for property at 225 Waterman Street, Providence. |
| SU-2025-0245-A |
Tony Gonzalez v. Lynne Corey |
The plaintiff appeals pro se from the dismissal of his claim for declaratory relief on a Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC) policy that states that inmates in the maximum-security facility are entitled to 8.5 hours of recreation away from their cell. The plaintiff sought to enforce this policy. The plaintiff contends that the policy is a legislative rule subject to enforcement by the Superior Court. The plaintiff also contends that the case has not become moot even though he is no longer housed in the maximum-security facility. |
| SU-2025-247-A. |
Shilo O. Horsman, individually, et al. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, et al. |
This is an underinsured motorist case in which plaintiff seeks to “stack” the available uninsured motorist limit of $1,000,000 for each of 25 covered autos, insured under the commercial auto policy of Phalanx, who was the employer of the decedent, her spouse, Eric Horsman. |
| SU-2025-0256-A. |
The Retirement Board of the Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island v. Charles Pearson |
The plaintiff, the Retirement Board of the Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island (the retirement board), appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, in this action seeking the revocation or reduction of the defendant’s state pension. The issue before the Court concerns the interpretation of G.L. 1956 § 36-10.1-2(a), which defines the phrase “crime related to public office or public employment.” |
| SU-2025-0258-A |
Irving Nardolillo v. Marcia Durocher |
The plaintiff appeals pro se from the dismissal of his negligence action. The plaintiff contends that the hearing judge erred in barring his wife from testifying. He also asserts that he was not properly heard by the hearing judge. |
| SU-2025-0296-A. |
Jane Doe v. Angelica Infante-Green, in her capacity as the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, Rhode Island Department of Education |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the plaintiff, Jane Doe, from judgment in favor of the defendant, Angelica Infante-Green, in her capacity as the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, Rhode Island Department of Education (the Commissioner), denying plaintiff’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief. The case involves the construction of a regulation of the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE), 200-RICR-30-10-1, promulgated pursuant to General Laws 1956 § 16-38-1.1, regarding protections for transgender and gender non-conforming students. On appeal before this Court, plaintiff asserts that the trial judge erred: (1) in finding that the term “sex” as used in § 16-38-1.1 was ambiguous; and (2) in using the statutory construction doctrine of in pari materia to resolve this ambiguity. |
| SU-2025-0323-A. |
Justin Walker v. Richard Merola et al. |
The plaintiff, who appears pro se, appeals from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). |
| SU-2025-0358, SU-2025-0359 |
Timothy Ehrlich v. The Captain’s House, LLC |
The defendant appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant contends that an easement and restrictive covenants did not expire when Joan C. Pendergast transferred the lot in question to the defendant. The defendant contends that the easement did not expire upon transfer of the property to the defendant because the defendant is owned by the Pendergast family and this complies with the easement provisions requiring Pedergast, her spouse or descendants to own the lot in question in order for the easement and restrictions to remain in force.
|