6 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shorrock v. Scottgreen2 sentences2010However, it is the responsibility of the party claiming the error to provide a complete record so that this Court may weigh the merits.") (internal quotation marks eliminated.) Other cases include Shorrock v. Scott , 944 A.2d 861 , 864 (R.I. 2008) ("It was [the] defendant's responsibility to provide those portions of the trial transcript that are necessary for this Court to perform a meaningful review."); State v. Pineda , 712 A.2d 858 , 861 (R.I. 1998) (declining "to overlook the glaring defects in [the] record" furnished by the petitioner). 2010See Shorrock v. Scott, 944 A.2d 861, 864 (R.I.2008) (“It was [the] defendant’s responsibility to provide those portions of the trial transcript that are necessary for this Court to perform a meaningful review.”); State v. Pineda, 712 A.2d 858, 861 (R.I.1998) (declining “to overlook the glaring defects in [the] record” furnished by the petitioner). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pinedagreen2 sentences2010However, it is the responsibility of the party claiming the error to provide a complete record so that this Court may weigh the merits.") (internal quotation marks eliminated.) Other cases include Shorrock v. Scott , 944 A.2d 861 , 864 (R.I. 2008) ("It was [the] defendant's responsibility to provide those portions of the trial transcript that are necessary for this Court to perform a meaningful review."); State v. Pineda , 712 A.2d 858 , 861 (R.I. 1998) (declining "to overlook the glaring defects in [the] record" furnished by the petitioner). 2010See Shorrock v. Scott, 944 A.2d 861, 864 (R.I.2008) (“It was [the] defendant’s responsibility to provide those portions of the trial transcript that are necessary for this Court to perform a meaningful review.”); State v. Pineda, 712 A.2d 858, 861 (R.I.1998) (declining “to overlook the glaring defects in [the] record” furnished by the petitioner). | 1 | 2 |
Palmigiano v. DiPretegreen1 sentence2004Palmigiano, 700 F. Supp. 1180 at 1196 (citations omitted). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co. v. Bellini
green
1 sentence2008As we said in that case, “[w]e disagree with the logic that an insurance company may avoid waiver by, on the one hand, insisting on compliance with an insurance contract, and, on the other hand, insisting that the insurance contract affords no coverage to the party claiming defense or indemnity under the provisions of the policy.” Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
1800 Smith Street Associates, LP v. Gencarelli
green
1 sentence2005“The party claiming that there has been a waiver of a contractual provision has the burden of proof on that issue.” 1800 Smith Street Associates, LP v. Gencarelli, 888 A.2d 46 , 55 n. 4 (2005); see 28 Am.Jur.2d Estoppel and Waiver § 225 (2000) (“The party claiming a waiver has the burden of proof of the facts on which the party relies to establish such a waiver, and unless such proof is forthcoming the party cannot sustain the claim.”). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Providence Journal Co. v. Sundlun
green
1 sentence2004Rule 1.2(g)(1) provides that “[a]ny claim of privilege shall be governed by the policy underlying the Access to Public Records Act, with the burden of proof resting on the party claiming the privilege.” In accord with the APRA’s policy favoring, disclosure, we previously remarked, “the exemptions listed in the APRA are to be construed narrowly, ‘so as to further the legislative purpose of facilitating public access to governmental records.’ ” Providence Journal Co., 616 A.2d at 1136 (quoting Hydron Laboratories, Inc., 492 A.2d at 139 ). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Hydron Laboratories, Inc. v. DEPT. OF ATTY. GEN.
green
1 sentence2004Rule 1.2(g)(1) provides that “[a]ny claim of privilege shall be governed by the policy underlying the Access to Public Records Act, with the burden of proof resting on the party claiming the privilege.” In accord with the APRA’s policy favoring, disclosure, we previously remarked, “the exemptions listed in the APRA are to be construed narrowly, ‘so as to further the legislative purpose of facilitating public access to governmental records.’ ” Providence Journal Co., 616 A.2d at 1136 (quoting Hydron Laboratories, Inc., 492 A.2d at 139 ). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.