Supreme Court of Rhode Island

The Supreme Court ordered the reciprocal disbarment of attorney Christopher L. Malcolm in this state because he was disbarred in Massachusetts and failed to demonstrate why the same discipline should not be imposed here.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment in favor of RIPTA, rejecting Galindez's eleven assignments of error. The Court held that the trial judge did not err in evidentiary rulings, spoliation instruction, late amendment of the answer, juror dismissal, jury question response, failure to…

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court's summary judgment in favor of Travelers, holding that the decedent was not an individual Named Insured entitled to stack underinsured motorist benefits, that Travelers did not waive its right to contest stacking, that the policy's limit provision did not…

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court judgment and the trial justice’s denial of the defendants’ motions for a new trial, holding that the trial justice did not abuse discretion in her evidentiary rulings, refusal to order appraisal, jury instruction decisions, and that the defendants waived…

The Supreme Court held that the General Assembly's enactment of G.L. 1956 § 3‑7‑19(d)(63) without local voter approval violated Article 13, § 4 of the Rhode Island Constitution, and that the statute is a procedural, Providence‑specific exemption rather than a general licensing law.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s summary judgment in favor of Avco, holding that the plaintiffs’ amended complaint did not meet the specific pleading requirements to invoke GARA’s misrepresentation exception and that the plaintiffs failed to establish causation for any new‑part claim under…

The Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s distribution of marital assets in the parties’ divorce. It held that compelling circumstances justified valuing certain stock-related assets as of the separation date rather than the trial date, and that assigning the wife’s unvested stock options and restricted stock…

The Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the equitable division of assets and the award of attorneys’ fees, and remanded the case for final judgment.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s grant of post‑conviction relief to Terrel Barros, holding that the newly discovered testimony of Gloria Parajon was admissible under Rule 804(b)(3) and sufficient to warrant a new trial, and remanded the record for further proceedings.

The court vacated the denial of the defendant's motion for a new trial and remanded for a new hearing. Although the trial justice extensively reviewed the circumstantial evidence and found the state's witnesses credible, she did not adequately explain how she personally weighed the evidence or why reasonable minds…

The court held that police lacked an objectively reasonable basis to enter and search the third-floor apartment without a warrant after officers found the reported deceased person on the second floor.

The Court held that the trial justice abused her discretion by admitting testimony and a report recounting statements allegedly made by Pena through an unidentified Spanish interpreter.

The Court affirmed a preliminary injunction restricting excessive noise and intrusive conduct at defendants’ property because the hearing justice properly considered each required factor and did not abuse his discretion.

The court vacated the defendant's convictions because the trial justice did not meaningfully perform the third step of the required equal-protection analysis for the prosecutor's peremptory strike of the sole African-American venireperson.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s order requiring Craig to provide Michele one-half of the marital portion of his pension. It held that the Property Settlement Agreement unambiguously covered both the pension and annuity components of Craig’s retirement plan, and that Michele’s claim accrued when Craig…

The Court affirmed the default judgment, holding that defendants' challenge to service of the default-related motions was not preserved because they failed to file the required motion to vacate in the Superior Court.

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed Juan Rivera's convictions for first-degree murder, conspiracy, and related firearm offenses arising from the 2021 shooting death of Jorge Garcia at Roque's Café in Providence.

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island answered a question certified by the First Circuit, holding that discrimination claims under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act of 1990 (RICRA) are 'actions of tort' under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA) and therefore fall within the STCA's broad waiver of sovereign immunity.

The Court affirmed summary judgment for MSAA because the businessowners policy expressly excluded bodily injury arising from the use of an automobile, and the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine factual dispute about the policy’s contents.

The Court affirmed dismissal of Rahim Caldwell’s second amended complaint because it did not provide fair notice of a specific constitutional injury or contain a demand for relief.

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to vacate the final divorce judgment. It held that the Family Court's premature entry of the decision pending entry of final judgment and final judgment was a procedural error, not a jurisdictional defect rendering the judgment void.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to recuse the trial justice, finding no bias, no due‑process violation, and no equal‑protection breach, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the disciplinary board’s recommendation that attorney Paul B. McCarthy be suspended pending restitution for mishandling a probate estate.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed Vasquez's conviction, holding that his Confrontation Clause claim was not preserved for appeal and that the narrow Moten exception for novel constitutional rules does not apply.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Richelle Cosmo and remanded for further proceedings. The Court held that the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim failed because she did not confer a benefit on the defendant, and that the doctrine of laches did not bar…

The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that whether the use of a non‑owned vehicle constitutes “regular use” under an uninsured/underinsured motorist policy is a question of fact for the jury, and therefore quashed the Superior Court’s order discharging the jury and remanded for a new trial.

The Court affirmed summary judgment denying PCHC a property-tax exemption for its Warwick property. It concluded that the specific exemption covered only PCHC property located in Providence and that the general exemption was ambiguous as applied to PCHC, requiring the doubt to be resolved in favor of taxation.

The Court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the defendant reinitiated conversation with the detective after invoking counsel and knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights before making the challenged statements.

The Supreme Court affirmed Family Court orders adjudicating E.G.S. delinquent on two first-degree child-molestation counts. It held that the trial justice acted within her discretion in finding E.G.S.

The Supreme Court considered whether the Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Advisory Board is a “public body” subject to Rhode Island’s Open Meetings Act. Relying on Pontarelli, the Court concluded the Board is an informal, ad‑hoc group that does not meet the statutory definition of a public body and therefore…

The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, holding that Rhode Island G.L. 1956 § 33‑19‑9 requires probate court approval for a co‑executor’s purchase of estate real estate, that the probate court’s sua sponte voiding of the sale was proper, that the co‑executors breached fiduciary duties and…

The Supreme Court held that res judicata barred Patel’s amended complaint because his claims arose from the same transaction as the earlier action and could have been raised before that action was dismissed.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of Patel’s complaint, holding that res judicata bars his claims against LandingPartners LLC and 1850 Post Road Owner LLC, but does not bar his claims against John O.

The Court answered both certified questions in the negative. It held that an employee’s work-related use of a personal vehicle did not make her a named insured under her employer’s policy contrary to its terms, and that the uninsured-motorist statute and public policy did not require coverage where the policy did not…

The Rhode Island Supreme Court quashed the Superior Court’s order dismissing Nicole McKiernan’s appeal, holding that the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act requires rent to be paid only on the next regular due date during an appeal and does not apply when the tenant has vacated the premises, thus remanding the case…

The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of the plaintiff's second motion to charge the garnishee for the full judgment, holding that G.L. 1956 § 10‑17‑15 imposes liability only when a trustee refuses or neglects to render the required account, which the garnishee did not do, and declined to address the…

The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Ferland Property Management because the adult plaintiffs’ alleged personal injuries occurred in or about 2012, more than three years before they filed suit in 2024. It also concluded that the illegal-eviction allegation was correctly rejected on issue-preclusion grounds.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s summary‑judgment ruling, holding that the three‑year statute of limitations for the plaintiffs’ legal‑malpractice claim barred the action, that the discovery‑rule exception did not apply, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to present expert…

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ discrimination suit, holding that the doctrine of res judicata bars the action because the claims could have been raised in the prior administrative proceeding and no recognized exception applies.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the warrant affidavit provided a sufficient totality‑of‑the‑circumstances basis for probable cause to seize the defendant's cell‑phone records and that the defendant voluntarily consented to the buccal swab, so both motions to suppress were denied.