Opinions, Decisions, and Orders

 

 

In the Matter of Jane I. Coogan1/23/2026 5:00:00 AM;2026-01-23T05:00:00Z2025-0331-M.P.
State v. Wallace Cable1/23/2026 5:00:00 AM;2026-01-23T05:00:00Z2024-0255-C.A.The defendant was found guilty on one count of first-degree child molestation sexual assault. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial justice erred when he permitted the state to introduce into evidence multiple out-of-court statements concerning what the complaining witness told a treating physician about the alleged charged and uncharged sexual assaults. The Supreme Court concluded that but for a single statement, the defendant failed to preserve the hearsay arguments for appeal. With respect to the one statement that was preserved concerning the defendant’s fear of imprisonment, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in admitting the hearsay statement pursuant to Rhode Island Rule of Evidence 803(4) and that the statement was cumulative of the testimony adduced from the complaining witness. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction.
SWAP Property Management et al. v. Henrietta Shepard1/22/2026 5:00:00 AM;2026-01-22T05:00:00Z2024-0328-Appeal.
Clifton Peasley v. City of Providence, by and through its Treasurer, Shomari Husband1/22/2026 5:00:00 AM;2026-01-22T05:00:00Z2025-0021-Appeal. The plaintiff, Clifton Peasley (plaintiff or Peasley), appealed the Superior Court’s dismissal of his action for declaratory relief, which sought, inter alia, a decree that he was entitled to back pay. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal pursuant to the election of remedies doctrine. In this respect, it was undisputed that before commencing the action for declaratory relief, the plaintiff had filed a grievance seeking back pay, which proceeding remained pending in arbitration. Peasley’s efforts to compare the provisions of the Teachers’ Tenure Act with the landmark antidiscrimination protections discussed in Weeks v. 735 Putnam Pike Operations, LLC, 85 A.3d 1147 (R.I. 2014), was unavailing. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed.
Walter S. Felag, Jr. and Elaine M. Calitri a/k/a Elaine M. Felag v. Anthony Patriarca, Mary Patriarca, and Cassie Patriarca1/21/2026 5:00:00 AM;2026-01-21T05:00:00ZPC-2022-4877
Alicia Andrew v. Richard Adorno1/15/2026 5:00:00 AM;2026-01-15T05:00:00Z2024-0269-Appeal.The plaintiff, Alicia Andrew, appealed from a final judgment of the Superior Court reversing a District Court judgment that granted her an order of protection against the defendant, Richard Adorno. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial justice erred in applying a clear and convincing standard to determine whether Ms. Andrew had been assaulted by Mr. Adorno. The Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court should have applied a preponderance of the evidence standard and that the plaintiff is entitled to a new hearing in the Superior Court using the appropriate standard. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court’s reversal of the District Court judgment and order of protection and remanded the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings.
1100 North Main LLC v. Shoreby Hill Properties, Inc.1/15/2026 5:00:00 AM;2026-01-15T05:00:00Z2024-0203-Appeal.The plaintiff, 1100 North Main LLC (plaintiff), appealed from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendant, Shoreby Hill Properties, Inc. (defendant), dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, which sought declaratory and other relief related to a purchase and sales agreement concerning the defendant’s property located at 301 Harris Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island (the Harris Avenue property). The trial justice also quashed two notices of lis pendens that the plaintiff had filed on the Harris Avenue property and denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint. The Supreme Court held that email communications concerning the purchase and sales agreement failed to satisfy the statute of frauds and therefore no binding contract had been formed. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court as well as the trial justice’s decision to deny the plaintiff’s motion to amend and grant the defendant’s motion to quash the notices of lis pendens.
Louis Paolino et al. v. Joseph Ferreira et al.1/14/2026 5:00:00 AM;2026-01-14T05:00:00Z2024-0149-Appeal.The plaintiffs, Louis Paolino and Marie Issa, appealed from an amended judgment in favor of the defendants—namely, Joseph Ferreira, the Joseph I. Ferreira Trust, J.F. Realty, LLC, and LKQ Corporation. The plaintiffs contended on appeal that the trial justice erred “in not giving a curative instruction on various misstatements of fact” that the defendants’ counsel purportedly made in his opening statement. They further contended that the trial justice erred in allowing a particular witness for the defendants to testify relative to a certain report which she had not relied upon in forming her initial opinion. The Supreme Court first held that the plaintiffs’ appeal would not be dismissed based on the untimeliness of the transmission of the record. It further held that the plaintiffs failed to object to the sufficiency of the curative instruction, thus precluding appellate review of the issue. Lastly, the Court held that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in allowing the defendants’ witness to provide limited testimony relative to a report that the defendants did not disclose that she had relied upon in forming her opinion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the amended judgment of the Superior Court.
City of Providence v. Sergeant Joseph Hanley1/13/2026 5:00:00 AM;2026-01-13T05:00:00ZPC-2025-3678
Erin Malloy, Kevin Malloy and Thomas Malloy v. David C. Fixler and Nancy G. Abrams, in their capacity as Co-Executors of the Estate of Arthur I. Fixler1/9/2026 5:00:00 AM;2026-01-09T05:00:00ZPP-2024-3180