Rhode Island General Laws
R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-14-1 (2026)
Equity petition in supreme court
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The title to any office, to determine which the writ of quo warranto lies at the common law, may be brought in question by petition to the supreme court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2023 · leading case: McKenna v. Williams, 874 A.2d 217 (R.I. 2005).
McKenna v. Williams, 874 A.2d 217 (R.I. 2005). “A petition in equity in the nature of quo warranto may be brought by a private individual who asserts that he or she has a right to the office at issue; and pursuant to G.L.1956 § 10-14-1, [8] the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain such a claim.”
State Ex Rel. Webb v. Cianci, 591 A.2d 1193 (R.I. 1991). “Such a petition in equity rests on an entirely different basis from petitioner's common-law petition for leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto. And although the petition before us does not conform to the provisions of § 10-14-1, we shall nevertheless…”
Fargnoli v. Cianci, 397 A.2d 68 (R.I. 1979). “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §10-14-1. This opinion supplements an order entered in this court on *156 August 9, 1978, in which we (1) vacated on jurisdictional grounds a July 28, 1978, judgment of the Superior Court which had upheld the Providence City Council’s July 12, 1978,…”
Felkner v. Chariho Reg'l Sch. Comm., 968 A.2d 865 (R.I. 2009). “See also G.L. 1956 § 10-14-1 (“The title to any office, to determine which the writ of quo warranto lies at the common law, may be brought in question by petition to the [Sjupreme [C]ourt.”
Whitehouse v. Moran, 808 A.2d 626 (R.I. 2002). “In 1891, the General Assembly enacted a statute, which is now codified as G.L.1956 § 10-14-1. This statute authorized the commencement of a petition in equity in the nature of quo warranto.”
Davis v. Cousineau, 196 A.2d 153 (R.I. 1963). “Each respondent filed an answer and each petitioner replied thereto joining issue. The parties having filed a formal stipulation containing an agreed statement of facts, we have for our determination only legal issues, namely, whether the petitioners are lawfully entitled to…”
Mellor v. Leidman, 211 A.2d 633 (R.I. 1965). “This is a petition in equity in the nature of quo warranto brought pursuant to G.L. 1956, § 10-14-1. The petitioner seeks the ouster of the respondent from the office of city clerk of the city of Cranston and the confirmation of his own title to that office.”
Whitman v. Mott, 336 A.2d 836 (R.I. 1975). “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §10-14-1, and are brought by petitioners who alleged that they are lawful incumbent members of the New Shoreham Town Council.”
Lecht v. Stewart, 483 A.2d 1079 (R.I. 1984). “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 10-14-1. The petition of Daniel Lecht (Lecht) claims that he is the chairperson of the Rhode Island State Council on the Arts; on the other hand, Rowena Stewart (Stewart) claims that she is the council’s chairperson.”
Casey v. Willey, 151 A.2d 369 (R.I. 1959). “The petition was brought in this court pursuant to the provisions of general laws 1956, §10-14-1, and was heard on the following agreed statement of facts: “1.”
Flynn v. King, 433 A.2d 172 (R.I. 1981). “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 10-14-1 vests exclusive jurisdiction to consider such a petition in the Supreme Court.”
Jessica Marie Purcell v. Clay Johnson Clay Johnson in his capacity as Council Appointee to the Chariho Reg'l Sch. Comm. v. Chariho Reg'l Sch. Comm. (R.I. 2023). “See G.L. 1956 § 10-14-1 (“The title to any office, to determine which the writ of quo warranto lies at the common law, may be brought in question by petition to the [S]upreme [C]ourt.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.