Michael R. McElroy v. Edward Stephens, III
Case Details
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- summary judgment
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Excerpt
The defendants appealed from an entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants argued that the hearing justice erred when he determined that the plaintiffs' lot had an easement appurtenant to travel across all of the defendants' properties to access Seaweed Beach because the plaintiffs did not have a "legal means" to access Seaweed Beach. The Supreme Court held that the defendants had demonstrated a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiffs had a right to cross over any of the defendants' properties to reach the Seaweed Beach easement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the case to the Superior Court for a proper determination of whether or not the plaintiffs have a right to cross over any of the defendants' properties to reach the Seaweed Beach easement.
Similar Rulings
The plaintiff, Michael Crenshaw, appealed from a January 7, 2019 judgment entered in the Providence County Superior Court in favor of the defendants, the State of Rhode Island and Lieutenant Scott Raynes (State Defendants) and the Community College of Rhode Island, the Council on Postsecondary…
The plaintiff, John Ferreira, appealed from the dismissal of his first amended complaint against his former employer, Child and Family Services of Newport County. The plaintiff had asserted claims such as defamation constructive termination discrimination based on disparate treatment, age, and…
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.