8 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Payne v. Superior Court for Providence Countygreen2 sentences2008While the doctrine does not have the finality of the doctrine of res judicata, it is nevertheless a doctrine "that generally ought to be adhered to for the principal reason that it is designed to promote the stability of decisions of judges of the same court and to avoid unseemly contests and differences that otherwise might arise among them to the detriment of public confidence in the judicial function." Payne v. Superior Court , 78 R.I. 177 , 184-85 , 80 A.2d 159 , 163 (R.I. 1951). 2008While the doctrine does not have the finality of the doctrine of res judicata, it is nevertheless a doctrine "that generally ought to be adhered to for the principal reason that it is designed to promote the stability of decisions of judges of the same court and to avoid unseemly contests and differences that otherwise might arise among them to the detriment of public confidence in the judicial function." Payne v. Superior Court , 78 R.I. 177 , 184-85 , 80 A.2d 159 , 163 (R.I. 1951). | 2 | 5 |
Salvadore v. Major Electric & Supply, Inc.green2 sentences2024It is more in the nature of a rule of policy and convenience.” Salvadore v. Major Electric & Supply, Inc., 469 A.2d 353, 356 (R.I. 1983). 2009It is more in the nature of a rule of policy and convenience." Id. at 356 *Page 8 (citation omitted). | 1 | 4 |
Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank v. National Health Foundationgreen2 sentences2007In Rhode Island Hospital Trust *991 National Bank v. National Health Foundation, 119 R.I. 823, 829 , 384 A.2d 301, 305 (1978) this Court held that the rule of the law of the case “does not have the finality of the doctrine of res adjudicata” and that an earlier denial of summary judgment did not preclude a subsequent motion for directed verdict on an expanded record. 2007In Rhode Island Hospital Trust *991 National Bank v. National Health Foundation, 119 R.I. 823, 829 , 384 A.2d 301, 305 (1978) this Court held that the rule of the law of the case “does not have the finality of the doctrine of res adjudicata” and that an earlier denial of summary judgment did not preclude a subsequent motion for directed verdict on an expanded record. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Columbus Ornamental Iron Works, Inc. v. Martin
green
2 sentences2008Our Supreme Court has held that "the `law of the case' doctrine is violated when a justice of the Superior Court grants a defendant's motion for summary judgment *Page 24 at a pretrial conference where the same motion had previously been denied by another justice of the same court." Salvadore v. Major Electric Supply Inc. , 469 A.2d 353 , 356 (R.I. 1983) (citing Columbus Ornamental Iron Works, Inc. v. Martin , 103 R.I. 620 , 622 , 240 A.2d 405 , 406 (1968)). 2008Our Supreme Court has held that "the `law of the case' doctrine is violated when a justice of the Superior Court grants a defendant's motion for summary judgment *Page 24 at a pretrial conference where the same motion had previously been denied by another justice of the same court." Salvadore v. Major Electric Supply Inc. , 469 A.2d 353 , 356 (R.I. 1983) (citing Columbus Ornamental Iron Works, Inc. v. Martin , 103 R.I. 620 , 622 , 240 A.2d 405 , 406 (1968)). | 2 | 2006–2008 |
Payne v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1987It is a flexible rule; one more in the nature of a rule of policy and convenience. * * * Nevertheless it is one that generally ought to be adhered to for the principal reason that it is designed to promote the stability of decisions of judges of the same court and to avoid unseemly contests and differences that otherwise might arise among them to the detriment of public confidence in the judicial function. * * * [T]he rule may be waived by reason of the importance of the issue involved to the ultimate disposition of the case.” Payne v. *1108 Superior Court, 78 R.I. 177, 184-85 , 80 A.2d 159, 1 | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.