R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-18.1-19 (2026)

Order of judgment on nonpayment of rent in pending appeals

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In the event that the defendant or defendants shall fail or refuse to pay all sums promptly when due, in accordance with the provisions of § 34-18.1-18, the court in which the case is pending, shall, without any trial on the merits, on motion of the plaintiff or plaintiffs, and hearing thereon, including satisfactory proof of the nonpayment, enter an order for the entry of judgment and the issuance of execution and the prompt service thereof, and from that order there shall be no appeal. The papers shall be forthwith returned to the district court which shall, upon payment of the required fee, issue an execution without further delay.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: City of Providence v. S & J 351, INC., 693 A.2d 665 (R.I. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Providence v. S & J 351, INC., 693 A.2d 665 (R.I. 1997). · cites it 12× “[2] A party who, pursuant to G.L.1956 § 34-18.1-19, has suffered dismissal of a pending appeal, such as the one presented in this case, is not permitted to appeal that dismissal to this Court.”
Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (R.I. 1991). · cites it 2× “Section 34-18.1-19, as amended by P.L.1988, ch.”
Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (R.I. 2000). “Pursuant to § 34-18.1-19, there was no right of appeal to this Court and, therefore, we review by common law writ of certiorari.”
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Marsha S. Jacavone (R.I. 2021). · cites it 2× “1997) addressed G.L. 1956 § 34-18.1-19, which concerns commercial properties, see City of Providence, 693 A.”
Pioneer Investments, LLC v. Nicole McKiernan (R.I. 2026). “See § 34-18.1-19. -9- G.L. 1956 § 34-18.1-18 did not apply because “[e]ssentially the controversy at that point was no longer possession of the premises, but rather the liability of [the defendant] for rent from and after the termination of the lease”).”
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Rocha, 623 A.2d 38 (R.I. 1993). “1956 (1984 Reenactment) § 34-18.1-19 as amended by ch. 494 § 1 of the Public Laws 1988.”
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.