7 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Manzotti v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co.green1 sentence2012The trial justice also made reference to the concern for double recovery in Manzotti v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co., 656 A.2d 625, 626 (R.I.1995) (mem.) (Manzotti I), and noted that no such concern existed in Casale’s case because Arnica reduced its tender by $58,768.06, based on the IOD payments made. | 1 | 1 |
Vincent R. Duffy v. Brian J. Sarault, Etc.green2 sentences2009See Duffy , 892 F.2d at 147 . 2009See Day v. City of Providence , 338 F. Supp.2d. 310, 317 (D.R.I. 2004) (quoting Duffy v. Sarault , 892 F.2d 139 , 147 (1st Cir.)) ("Where a reorganization or other cost-cutting measure results in a dismissal of an employee no hearing is due.") However, where, as here, Plaintiff contends that her termination was discriminatory or retaliatory, she is entitled to put on evidence *Page 10 demonstrating that the supposed reorganization was pretextual and that she was entitled to a hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Glen Misek and Richard J. Krakowski v. The City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, Harold Washington, Charles A. Pounian and Susan L. Weedgreen1 sentence2008As a result, these lay offs do not implicate their good name, reputation, honor or integrity, such that any procedural due process claim premised on these grounds must fail. 38 See also Misek v. Chicago 783 F.2d 98 , 101 (7 th Cir. 1986) ("There is an exception to a hearing right when the discharge is caused by reorganization" unless the dismissal is a "pretext."); Day v City of Providence , 338 F. Supp. 2d 310 , 317 (D.R.I. 2004) ("There is a well-established `reorganization exception' to the requirement that an employee receive a pre-termination hearing: Where a reorganization or other cost- | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Martone v. Johnston School Committee
green
1 sentence2014However, our decision in Martone v. Johnston School Committee, 824 A.2d 426 (R.I.2008) provides helpful contextual guidance. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Digiacinto v. Harford County, Md.
green
1 sentence2008However, if a purported municipal reorganization is merely a pretext for terminating an individual for other, discriminatory reasons, the reorganization exception is inapplicable.") (citations omitted); Dane County v. McCartney , 166 Wis. 2d 956 , 963-64 , 480 N.W.2d 830 , 833-34 (Ct.App. 1992) (holding that an elimination of a position pursuant to a reorganization does not entitle employee to due process). 39 See also Digiacinto v. Harford County, Md. , 818 F. Supp. 903 , 906 (D. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Dane County v. McCartney
green
2 sentences2008However, if a purported municipal reorganization is merely a pretext for terminating an individual for other, discriminatory reasons, the reorganization exception is inapplicable.") (citations omitted); Dane County v. McCartney , 166 Wis. 2d 956 , 963-64 , 480 N.W.2d 830 , 833-34 (Ct.App. 1992) (holding that an elimination of a position pursuant to a reorganization does not entitle employee to due process). 39 See also Digiacinto v. Harford County, Md. , 818 F. Supp. 903 , 906 (D. 2008However, if a purported municipal reorganization is merely a pretext for terminating an individual for other, discriminatory reasons, the reorganization exception is inapplicable.") (citations omitted); Dane County v. McCartney , 166 Wis. 2d 956 , 963-64 , 480 N.W.2d 830 , 833-34 (Ct.App. 1992) (holding that an elimination of a position pursuant to a reorganization does not entitle employee to due process). 39 See also Digiacinto v. Harford County, Md. , 818 F. Supp. 903 , 906 (D. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Day v. City of Providence
green
1 sentence2008As a result, these lay offs do not implicate their good name, reputation, honor or integrity, such that any procedural due process claim premised on these grounds must fail. 38 See also Misek v. Chicago 783 F.2d 98 , 101 (7 th Cir. 1986) ("There is an exception to a hearing right when the discharge is caused by reorganization" unless the dismissal is a "pretext."); Day v City of Providence , 338 F. Supp. 2d 310 , 317 (D.R.I. 2004) ("There is a well-established `reorganization exception' to the requirement that an employee receive a pre-termination hearing: Where a reorganization or other cost- | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Yellow Cab Co. of Providence v. Public Utility Hearing Board
green
2 sentences1981The answer to this inquiry is to be found in the holdings in Yellow Cab Co. of Providence v. Public Utility Hearing Board, 101 R.I. 296 , 222 A.2d 361 (1966); Nocera Bros. 1981The answer to this inquiry is to be found in the holdings in Yellow Cab Co. of Providence v. Public Utility Hearing Board, 101 R.I. 296 , 222 A.2d 361 (1966); Nocera Bros. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
MICROFIN CORPORATION v. De Lisi
green
1 sentence1975I. 703, 306 A.2d 797 (1973), and although we cannot weigh the evidence but must accept the determination of the commission if we can find any evidence to support it, Thompson v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 105 R. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Carroll v. Lanza
green
2 sentences1972Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U. S. 408 , 75 S.Ct. 804 , 99 L.Ed. 1183 (1955). 1972Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U. S. 408 , 75 S.Ct. 804 , 99 L.Ed. 1183 (1955). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.