| Staci K. Shepherd v. Rhode Island State Police et al. | 7/10/2025 4:00:00 AM;2025-07-10T04:00:00Z | 2024-0099-Appeal. | After suffering a heart attack at the state police training academy, the plaintiff filed an application for a disability pension in accordance with G.L. 1956 § 42-28 21, which the superintendent of the Rhode Island State Police denied. Specifically, the superintendent concluded that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the burden and prove that the heart attack was causally related to her employment. The plaintiff responded by filing a declaratory-judgment complaint and a justice of the Superior Court declared that the superintendent’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, and that the plaintiff was entitled to a disability pension.
On appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the superintendent overlooked the admonition that in heart-attack cases “we do not equate the term ‘causal relationship’ with the term ‘proximate cause’ as found in negligence actions. Here, it is enough if the conditions and nature of the employment contribute to the injury.” Mulcahey v. New England Newspapers, Inc., 488 A.2d 681, 684 (R.I. 1985). The Supreme Court reviewed the undisputed record de novo and determined that the plaintiff’s employment with the state police contributed to the heart attack. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. |
| Ethics Advisory Panel | 7/10/2025 4:00:00 AM;2025-07-10T04:00:00Z | 2025-09 | |
| Ethics Advisory Panel | 7/10/2025 4:00:00 AM;2025-07-10T04:00:00Z | 2025-08 | |
| State v. Joseph Coletta | 7/9/2025 4:00:00 AM;2025-07-09T04:00:00Z | 2022-0035-C.A. | The defendant, Joseph Coletta (Mr. Coletta or defendant), appealed from a Superior Court judgment of conviction following a jury trial at which he was found guilty of five counts of second-degree child molestation. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial justice erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress his post-arrest statement to police because it was obtained in violation of the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution; (2) denying his motion to suppress his post-arrest statement to police because it was obtained in violation of Rule 5(a) of the District Court Rules of Criminal Procedure; (3) granting the state’s motion in limine to preclude the defendant’s false-confessions expert from testifying; and (4) denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
The defendant waived his argument that the trial justice erred in denying his motion to suppress under the Rhode Island Constitution. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress was clearly erroneous under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and whether his statement to police was obtained in violation of Rule 5(a) of the District Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. Because the defendant gave his post-arrest police statement knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and any purported delay in his presentment to the District Court under Rule 5(a) was not operative in inducing his statement, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial justice did not clearly err in denying the motion to suppress. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in granting the state’s motion in limine to preclude the defendant’s expert witness from testifying about false confessions because the defendant failed to alert the trial justice that scientific or medical evidence was at issue. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial justice did not clearly err in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. |
| New Phase Realty, LLC, assignor and prior owner, et al. v. Jeremy J. Fournier et al. | 7/8/2025 4:00:00 AM;2025-07-08T04:00:00Z | 2024-0215-Appeal. and 2024-0216-Appeal. | The plaintiffs, Daniel B. Struebing and Amanda L. Lyons, appealed in these consolidated trespass and adverse possession cases from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Jeremy J. Fournier and Jennifer M. Fournier. On appeal, the plaintiffs contended, inter alia, that the hearing justice overlooked the fact that a “seizure” by the United States government of the plaintiffs’ property interrupted the running of the statutory time period relative to the defendants’ adverse possession claim. The plaintiffs also contended that the hearing justice impermissibly acted as a factfinder and that he overlooked the federal district court’s express determination regarding the alleged forfeiture of the lot in question.
In reviewing the plaintiffs’ contentions, the Supreme Court held that the hearing justice did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. |
| Registration and Oversight of Professional Bondspersons | 7/7/2025 4:00:00 AM;2025-07-07T04:00:00Z | 2025-05 | |
| Joshua A. Karten v. Proclamation Ales, L.L.C. and Lori Witham, in her official capacity as the Executrix of the Estate of David Witham only and not individually | 7/7/2025 4:00:00 AM;2025-07-07T04:00:00Z | WC-2020-0212 | |
| Kristina Urbonas et al. v. John Gullison et al. | 7/3/2025 4:00:00 AM;2025-07-03T04:00:00Z | 2024-0060-Appeal. | The defendant, NRI 51 Kingston Partnership (NRI), appealed from a January 18, 2023 final judgment of the Superior Court, which awarded title to a portion of land to the plaintiffs, Kristina Urbonas and Arunas Aniukstis, which land had been considered by NRI to be its property. The defendant contended that the trial justice “misapplied the doctrine of acquiescence” to the portion of land at issue. The defendant further contended that the trial justice erred in awarding title to abutters other than the plaintiffs as said abutters had not requested such relief. The plaintiffs argued that the case was not properly before the Supreme Court because the defendant did “not receive[] an order from this Court extending the time by which they [would be] permitted to file the transcript in this case.”
The Supreme Court held that, in view of the very unusual travel of this case, the defendant’s appeal would not be dismissed even though it did not initially request the transcripts in a timely manner. The Court further held that, although the trial justice erred in applying the doctrine of acquiescence to the parcel of property in dispute, the plaintiffs had established an easement by prescription. In addition, the Court held that the trial justice erred in granting the same relief to parties that had not requested it. |
| Robert Stratoberdha et al. v. Clements Properties, LLC, et al. | 7/3/2025 4:00:00 AM;2025-07-03T04:00:00Z | 2024-0017-Appeal. | The plaintiff, Robert Stratoberdha, appealed a Superior Court order approving a settlement agreement despite his objection. Critically, however, Mr. Stratoberdha failed to timely appeal any of the three orders rendered in the Family Court during the divorce proceedings, which concerned the settlement agreement. The Family Court decrees incorporated the settlement agreement, appointed a Commissioner to execute the settlement agreement if one of the Stratoberdhas refused to do so, and directed that the Stratoberdhas evenly divide the net proceeds from the sale of the marital domicile and any additional settlement funds received as a result of the Superior Court action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that the Family Court decrees are final and that the Superior Court’s reliance thereon may not be challenged in connection with the ministerial act of approving the settlement agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Superior Court. |
| State v. Jose Lantigua | 7/3/2025 4:00:00 AM;2025-07-03T04:00:00Z | 2024-0014-C.A. | The defendant, Jose Lantigua, appealed from a November 22, 2023 judgment of conviction and commitment on one count of first-degree child molestation and one count of second-degree child molestation following a jury trial held in the Providence County Superior Court. On appeal, the defendant contended that the trial justice erred in allowing a medical expert to “impermissibly bolster” the complaining witness’s testimony.
The Supreme Court held that the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appellate review and that it was therefore deemed to have been waived. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. |