7 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Florigreen2 sentences2026“Under that standard, ‘it is well established that this Court will not disturb a trial justice’s ruling on an evidentiary issue unless that ruling constitutes an abuse of the justice’s discretion that prejudices the complaining party.’” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Flori, 963 A.2d 932, 941 (R.I. 2009)). -8- Discussion On appeal, defendant argues that the statements to Dr. Barron that are challenged as hearsay were not made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. 2010State v. Flori, 963 A.2d 932, 941 (R.I.2009). | 2 | 2 |
Corvese v. Medco Containment Services, Inc.green2 sentences2002“In reviewing the motion justice’s stay of discovery, we apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. at 297 (citing Corvese v. Medco Containment Services, Inc., 687 A.2d 880, 881-82 (R.I.1997) (per curiam)). 2001Corvese v. Medco Containment Services, Inc., 687 A.2d 880 (R.I.1997); Bashforth v. Zampini, 576 A.2d 1197 (R.I.1990). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2026Standard of Review It is axiomatic that this Court “review[s] a trial justice’s admission of evidence under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Benitez, 266 A.3d 1221 , 1227 (R.I. 2022) (quoting State v. Brown, 9 A.3d 1240, 1247 (R.I. 2010)). 2026“Under that standard, ‘it is well established that this Court will not disturb a trial justice’s ruling on an evidentiary issue unless that ruling constitutes an abuse of the justice’s discretion that prejudices the complaining party.’” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Flori, 963 A.2d 932, 941 (R.I. 2009)). -8- Discussion On appeal, defendant argues that the statements to Dr. Barron that are challenged as hearsay were not made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Howardgreen2 sentences2011Conversely, “[i]n reviewing the motion justice’s stay of discovery, we apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Giuliano v. Pastina, 793 A.2d 1035, 1037 (R.I.2002) (quoting Martin v. Howard, 784 A.2d 291, 297 (R.I.2001)). 2011Conversely, "[i]n reviewing the motion justice's stay of discovery, we apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." Giuliano v. Pastina, 793 A.2d 1035, 1037 (R.I.2002) (quoting Martin v. Howard, 784 A.2d 291, 297 (R.I.2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Giuliano v. Pastinagreen2 sentences2011Conversely, “[i]n reviewing the motion justice’s stay of discovery, we apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Giuliano v. Pastina, 793 A.2d 1035, 1037 (R.I.2002) (quoting Martin v. Howard, 784 A.2d 291, 297 (R.I.2001)). 2011Conversely, "[i]n reviewing the motion justice's stay of discovery, we apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." Giuliano v. Pastina, 793 A.2d 1035, 1037 (R.I.2002) (quoting Martin v. Howard, 784 A.2d 291, 297 (R.I.2001)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., State v. White, 512 A.2d 1370, 1373 (R.I.1986). 2002See, e.g., State v. White, 512 A.2d 1370, 1373 (R.I.1986). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Colvin v. Lekas
green
1 sentence2002“In reviewing the motion justice’s stay of discovery, we apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. at 297 (citing Corvese v. Medco Containment Services, Inc., 687 A.2d 880, 881-82 (R.I.1997) (per curiam)). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Bashforth v. Zampini
green
1 sentence2001Corvese v. Medco Containment Services, Inc., 687 A.2d 880 (R.I.1997); Bashforth v. Zampini, 576 A.2d 1197 (R.I.1990). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. DiPrete
green
1 sentence1998For the reasons set forth in State v. Di-Prete, 710 A.2d 1266 (R.I.1998), I contend emphatically that Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, neither explicitly nor implicitly confers upon a justice of the Superior Court discretion to dismiss an information or indictment save under the most extraordinary and compelling circumstances. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.