standards rule (Rhode Island) · Go Syfert
← Rhode Island issues

standards rule in Rhode Island

10 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2016 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.

Followed or applied (8)

CaseFollowedCited
Heflin v. Koszelagreen
ri · 2001 · cited in 2 Rhode Island opinions naming this issue, 2003–2004
2 sentences

2004Heflin v. Koszela, 774 A.2d 25, 29 (R.I.2001).

2003See Heflin v. Koszela, 774 A.2d 25, 29 (R.I.2001).

22
Lacey v. Reitsmagreen
ri · 2006 · cited in 2 Rhode Island opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008Lacey, 899 A.2d at 457 .

2008Lacey v. Reitsma, 899 A.2d 455, 457 (R.I.2006); see also Ruggiero v. City of Providence, 893 A.2d 235, 237 (R.I.2006).

12
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Arbella Protection Insurancegreen
ri · 2011 · cited in 1 Rhode Island opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016“It is a fundamental principle that [sjummary judgment is a drastic remedy, and a motion for summary judgment should be dealt with cautiously.” Id. (quoting Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Arbella Protection Insurance Co., 24 A.3d 544, 553 (R.I.2011)), “We will affirm a lower court's decision only if, after reviewing the admissible evidence in the light most favorable' to the nonmoving party, we conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting Great American E & S Insurance Co., 45 A.3d at 574 ). “[T]he

2016“It is a fundamental principle that [sjummary judgment is a drastic remedy, and a motion for summary judgment should be dealt with cautiously.” Id. (quoting Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Arbella Protection Insurance Co., 24 A.3d 544, 553 (R.I.2011)), “We will affirm a lower court's decision only if, after reviewing the admissible evidence in the light most favorable' to the nonmoving party, we conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting Great American E & S Insurance Co., 45 A.3d at 574 ). “[T]he

11
The Law Firm of Thomas A. Tarro, III v. Maria Checrallahgreen
ri · 2013 · cited in 1 Rhode Island opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016II Standard of Review “The grant of a motion for summary judgment is reviewed by this Court de novo, employing the same standards and rule s used by the hearing justice.” The Law Firm of Thomas A. Tarro, III v. Checrallah, 60 A.3d 598, 601 (R.1.2013) (quoting Great American E & S Insurance Co. v. End Zone Pub & Grill of Narragansett, Inc., 45 A.3d 571, 574 (R.I.2012)).

11
Great American E & S Insurance v. End Zone Pub & Grill of Narragansett, Inc.green
ri · 2012 · cited in 1 Rhode Island opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016II Standard of Review “The grant of a motion for summary judgment is reviewed by this Court de novo, employing the same standards and rule s used by the hearing justice.” The Law Firm of Thomas A. Tarro, III v. Checrallah, 60 A.3d 598, 601 (R.1.2013) (quoting Great American E & S Insurance Co. v. End Zone Pub & Grill of Narragansett, Inc., 45 A.3d 571, 574 (R.I.2012)).

2016“It is a fundamental principle that [sjummary judgment is a drastic remedy, and a motion for summary judgment should be dealt with cautiously.” Id. (quoting Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Arbella Protection Insurance Co., 24 A.3d 544, 553 (R.I.2011)), “We will affirm a lower court's decision only if, after reviewing the admissible evidence in the light most favorable' to the nonmoving party, we conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting Great American E & S Insurance Co., 45 A.3d at 574 ). “[T]he

11
Ruggiero v. City of Providencegreen
ri · 2006 · cited in 1 Rhode Island opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008Lacey v. Reitsma, 899 A.2d 455, 457 (R.I.2006); see also Ruggiero v. City of Providence, 893 A.2d 235, 237 (R.I.2006).

11
Ritter v. Mantissa Investment Corp.green
ri · 2005 · cited in 1 Rhode Island opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007Ritter v. Mantissa Investment Corp., 864 A.2d 601, 604 (R.I.2005).

11
Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc.green
ri · 1996 · cited in 1 Rhode Island opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
1 sentence

1998Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc., 674 A.2d 1223, 1225 (R.I.1996).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. Willie Decoster, Jr. green
cadc · 1973
2 sentences

1976In his representation of the defendant, Mr. Malinou should be guided by the standards for defense counsel set forth in United States v. De Coster, 487 F.2d 1197 (D.C.

1976In his representation of the defendant, Mr. Malinou should be guided by the standards for defense counsel set forth in United States v. De Coster, 487 F.2d 1197 (D.C.

21976–1976
DelSanto v. Hyundai Motor Finance Co. green
ri · 2005
1 sentence

2006Id.

12006–2006

Where else courts name it

TX 180 (1986–2025) PA 29 (1980–2025) WA 19 (1967–2018) NJ 12 (1987–2025) NY 12 (1961–2026) CA 12 (1965–2022) RI 10 (1976–2016) CT 10 (1988–2025) MD 10 (1987–2019) OH 10 (1988–2020) IL 9 (1958–2025) CO 7 (1980–2005) MA 7 (1990–2008) AL 7 (1982–2001) NM 6 (1981–2012) MN 5 (1987–2024) ID 5 (1985–2020) DE 5 (1984–2024) IA 5 (1970–2023) KS 4 (2004–2022) MI 4 (1974–1996) IN 4 (1974–2012) DC 4 (1968–1999) VT 3 (1987–1990) MO 3 (1965–1989) WI 3 (1978–1987) OR 3 (1983–2011) AZ 3 (1988–2015) ME 3 (2018–2025) FL 3 (1975–1997) MT 2 (1973–2002) NC 2 (2021–2021) AR 2 (2015–2019) ND 2 (1990–1993) AK 2 (1993–2002) SC 2 (2013–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check