Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1899–1984 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rhode Island Consumers' Council v. Smithgreen2 sentences1984See Rhode Island Consumers’ Council v. Smith, 111 R.I. 271, 277 , 302 A.2d 757, 762 (1973). 1984See Rhode Island Consumers’ Council v. Smith, 111 R.I. 271, 277 , 302 A.2d 757, 762 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities Commissiongreen1 sentence1979Id. at 1052. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Union Trust Co. v. Casserly
green
1 sentence1929In addition to citations heretofore made see Union Trust Co. v. Casserly, 127 Mich. 183 , where the error was in the date of the first and last deliveries. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Grant v. City of Davenport
green
1 sentence1912In the case of Grant v. City of Davenport, 36 Ia. 396 , an ordinance permitted the formation of a water company by certain persons, and granted to the company a privilege to supply water to the city for a term of years; and provided for payment of certain annual sums for fire-hydrants and other service for a series of years. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Wilson v. the Conway Fire Insurance Company
neutral
1 sentence1899It also appears that the plaintiff had notice of this fact, in her receipt for premiums, not only in the clause already quoted but also in a notice printed on the receipt that it was "not valid unless countersigned by manager of this association at Providence, R.I." In Wilson v. Conway Co., 4 R.I. 141 , it was held that an agent, empowered merely to receive applications and to transmit them to the company, to receive the policy and to issue it to the applicant on payment of the premium, is not the agent of the company; and this decision was adhered to in Reed v. Equitable Ins. | 1 | 1899–1899 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.