generally recognized claim in Rhode Island

2001Such limits and burdens violate the constitution "only when the statute prohibits complete access for a generally recognized claim to and entire class of litigants." See id.

2001Therefore, the legislature may place "permissibly * * * reasonable limits or burdens on the parties' right to have their claims adjudicated by the courts." Id.

1995Such limits or burdens violate the constitutional protection mandated by article 1, section 5, only when statutes “prohibit court access absolutely for a generally recognized claim to a class of plaintiffs.” (Emphasis added.) Kennedy, 471 A.2d at 198 .

1995Except for an absolute prohibition, however, the Legislature may place “permissibly * * * reasonable limits or burdens on the parties’ right to have their claims adjudicated by the courts.” Id.

1984The total denial of access to the courts for adjudication of a claim even before it arises, however, most certainly “flies in the face of the constitutional command found in art. 1, § 5,” Lemoine v. Martineau, 115 R.I. at 240 , 342 A.2d at 621 , and to hold otherwise would be to render this constiiu-tional protectidh"~worthless, To prohibit court access absolutely for a generally recognized claim to a class of plaintiffs merely because they were injured by a product more than ten years old not only is irrational, in our opinion, but also flies in the face of even minimal constitutional protect

1984The total denial of access to the courts for adjudication of a claim even before it arises, however, most certainly “flies in the face of the constitutional command found in art. 1, § 5,” Lemoine v. Martineau, 115 R.I. at 240 , 342 A.2d at 621 , and to hold otherwise would be to render this constiiu-tional protectidh"~worthless, To prohibit court access absolutely for a generally recognized claim to a class of plaintiffs merely because they were injured by a product more than ten years old not only is irrational, in our opinion, but also flies in the face of even minimal constitutional protect

1968Missionaries of Co. of Mary, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., Conn., 230 A.2d 21 .

1958This court has approved and applied the generally recognized principle that in the exercise of such public or governmental function a municipality is not subject to civil liability unless the same is specifically imposed by statute.” See also City of Wooster v. Arbenz, 116 Ohio St. 281, 282 , for a well-considered discussion of the tests applied in ascertaining the distinction between governmental and proprietary functions.

1933U. S. v. Rundle, 107 Fed. 227 ; So.