Court Rulings

The defendant, the Town of North Providence (the town), by and through its Interim Director of Finance, Maria Vallee, appealed from the Superior Court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Angelo Riccitelli, a former firefighter employed by the town who retired after sustaining a work-related injury. Summary judgment turned on the meaning of the term \monthly net pay\ within a provision of the collective bargaining agreement between the town and Riccitelli's former union. <br><br>Before this Court, the town argued that the hearing justice erred in granting summary judgment because: (1) the hearing justice did not consider the town's proffered extrinsic evidence (2) Riccitelli's motion was improperly framed (3) Riccitelli failed to show the absence of any issue of material fact and (4) the provision of the collective bargaining agreement at issue was ambiguous. <br> <br>The Supreme Court concluded that, because Riccitelli never provided the full text of the collective bargaining agreement, which was necessary to any finding that the term \monthly net pay\ unambiguously supported his position, he failed to carry his initial burden of showing an absence of issues of material fact. His motion for summary judgment should have been denied on that basis. <br><br>Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Superior Court. <br>

In this child-custody dispute between the defendant, James W.A. Jackson, and the plaintiff, Kelly K. Fitzgerald, the defendant appealed an order declaring that the Rhode Island Family Court has jurisdiction over the matter. The defendant raised numerous issues in support of his appeal at its root, he disputed the Rhode Island Family Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter and personal jurisdiction over him. <br> <br>The Supreme Court held that the Rhode Island Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case and that the defendant waived the issue of personal jurisdiction by consenting to jurisdiction. The Supreme Court further held that the hearing justice erred in not ruling on the defendant's emergency motion for temporary orders. As to the defendant's suggestion that future evidentiary hearings should be held via WebEx rather than in person because he resides in Australia, the Supreme Court stated that, where possible, reasonable accommodations should be made for a noncitizen defendant in a global custody dispute. The Court additionally concluded that the defendant's remaining arguments were unavailing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Family Court. <br><br>